trivial subjects and in favor of the sublime. While Macedonski also discarded the concept of "social poetry" not long after postulating it, its spirit, Tudor Vianu believes, can still be found in his later contributions. This, the critic notes, was owed to his "social temperament", whose "fundamental experience is that of the social." Discussing this sociable and extrovert character, other critics see in the poet's life and work the imprint of "quixotism". Also according to Vianu, this contrasted with Macedonski's failures in communicating with the public, an experience which made him "misanthropic" and contributed to his ultimate vision of death as freedom. Literary historian Pompiliu Constantinescu concluded: "Macedonski could not resign; his one martyrdom was for Art, as the sole liberation from a tormented life." Other commentators have defined the poet's perspective on life as a result of "neurosis". In Vianu's perspective, Macedonski's stance is dominated by a mixture of nostalgia, sensuality, lugubrious-grotesque imagery, and "the lack of bashfulness for antisocial sentiments" which compliments his sarcasm. In respect to the latter characteristic, Vianu notes "no one in Romanian literature has laughed the same way as Macedonski", whereas critic Ștefan Cazimir argues: "[Macedonski was] lacking the sense of relativity in principles, and implicitly a sense of humor." Cazimir adds: "Only when he aged did [Macedonski] learn to smile". George Călinescu himself believes Macedonski to have been "fundamentally a spiritual man with lots of humor", speculating that he was able to see the "uselessness" of his own scientific ventures. Critics note that, while Macedonski progressed from one stage to the other, his work fluctuated between artistic accomplishment and mediocrity. Tudor Vianu believes "failure in reaching originality" and reliance on "soppy-conventional attributes of the day" to be especially evident wherever Macedonski tried to emulate epic poetry. He also notes that Macedonski's love-themed pieces "cannot be listed among [his] most fortunate". At his best, commentators note, he was one of the Romanian literature's classics. Macedonski is thus perceived as the author second only to Eminescu, and as his ideal counterpart—a relation Vianu describes as "the internal dualism [confronting] two familiar gods". Various critics have compared Eminescu's poetic discourse with that of the Symbolist leader, concluding that the two poets often display very similar attitudes. Călinescu writes that, while Macedonski's work is largely inferior to that of his Junimist rival, it forms the best "reply" ever conceived within their common setting. Prima verba and other