▁as ▁particularly ▁ham per ed ▁by ▁his ▁borrow ings ▁from ▁the ▁hum orous ▁verse ▁of ▁I on ▁Min ules cu ▁and ▁his ▁own ▁" pr ank ish ▁temper ament ". ▁ ▁Cre v edia ▁and ▁his ▁friend ▁George ▁Dor ul ▁Dum it res cu ▁both ▁regarded ▁Arg he zi ▁as ▁" the ▁prince ▁of ▁writers ". ▁Also ▁supporting ▁the ▁hypothesis ▁that ▁Cre v edia ' s ▁work ▁was ▁largely ▁sh aped ▁by ▁Mil de w ▁Flow ers , ▁critic ▁ Ș er ban ▁Ci oc ules cu ▁saw ▁additional ▁echo es ▁from ▁Serge i ▁Yes en in , ▁particularly ▁in ▁the ▁" d aring ▁cr ud eness " ▁of ▁their ▁shared ▁voc ab ul ary . ▁This ▁view ▁was ▁ton ed ▁down ▁by ▁poet ▁Mih ai ▁Ben i uc , ▁who ▁though ▁a ▁direct ▁comparison ▁between ▁the ▁Roman ian ▁and ▁Russian ▁poet ▁was ▁ex agger ated . ▁Yes en ian ▁them es ▁were ▁trac ed ▁by ▁Ci oc ules cu ▁to ▁po ems ▁such ▁as ▁Ce ai ▁dans ant ▁(" Te a ▁Party "), ▁which ▁displays ▁nost alg ia ▁for ▁the ▁coun tr ys ide : ▁ ▁The ▁modern ist ▁Eugen ▁Lov ines cu ▁describes ▁Cre v edia ▁as ▁the ▁most ▁accomplished ▁traditional ist , ▁and ▁notes ▁that ▁Bulg ă ri ▁și ▁ste le ▁would ▁have ▁been ▁a ▁fully ▁original ▁work ▁had ▁it ▁not ▁been ▁for ▁Mil de w ▁Flow ers . ▁Cre v edia ' s ▁art ▁was ▁" ne ither ▁folk lor ic ▁nor ▁a ▁past el , ▁neither ▁bu col