275 EzekieFs only interest is in seeing the subject dispassionately; consequently, many things which need saying, but are not said, fearing unpopularity, get said by hinio This is evident in his comments on Indian-English poetry, as in his paper read at the Jaipur seminar in 1973 (published in The Opinion Literary Quarterly^ I, 2). One is impressed with the very close reading which goes into each review by Ezekiel, irrespective of its lengtho One notices how careful he is to see that his strictures against Sri Aurobindo are not based on his own low estimate of his poetry or drama; Ezekiel condemns him as a critic on the basis of his criticism alone, and cites precise examples of Aurobindo's careless approach: "On Croce: 'I have not read Croce but» c . c/ On Lawrence: 'I have not read anything of r Lawrence buto o o ,' On Rolland: 'I have not yet read Jean Cristophe buto . o <,'" Yet Ezekiel is fair, even while showing up the lapses of Sri Aurobindo as a critic, he does not play down his importance in other fields, and observes that Sri Aurobindo may deserve study as a yogi and mystic in the Indian traditiono Ezekiel is not swayed by his personal feelings towards the author under revieWo Thus there is never any tendency to score points over an author, or to be "kind" in violation of literary standards. A recent example is his introduction to Selected Poems by Chaman Revrio The warmth of the tone of the introduction is proof enough of Ezekiel^ humanity, but literary judgments are not suspended. His love and friendship for the dead poet do not lead him to unjustified praise: Now that he is no more, his book of poems is being offered to his friends as a memorial to the mano It seemed appropriate to make the selection considerably more generous than originally contemplated so as not to leave out facets of the poet's personality which are of more interest to his friends than standards of poetry^ c , , Had he ^ived, I am sure the poet would have gone on to better thmgSo The publication of this book is an expression of love and friendshipo^ Ezekiel has never any compunction about condemning outright what is bad: consider the strong language of his review of Mimosa, poems by Dilip K. Chakra-varty (published in Dialogue India^ a poetry review from Calcutta edited by Pritish Nandy,) The loaded sentences of Ezekiel's prose put across his point of view with penetration and forceo He states his evaluation of the work in the first sentence, and goes on to substantiate this evaluation. The review does not ramble, but has a cohesive formc After devoting a paragraph each to the blurb and the "Writer's Note," pinpointing the exaggerated claims couched in bad English, he tu^ns to the poem themselves, and quotes two complete poems (eight lines each), so evidently bad that they require no comment« The conclusion of this review shows Ezekiel at his most vitriolic as a critiCo One sees how he gets involved, almost emotionally, when it comes to something which touches intellectual life m India. The sarcasm of the passage is not prompted solely by the work under review; it is an expression of his indignation at the