Eliot wrote her essay after World War II.

Eliot maintains that the English language is the richest for poetry but she doesn’t mean that England has produced the greatest poets or amount of poetry. She supports her thesis saying that the English language is the most remarkable medium for the poet to use as one wishes. A poet could use English language how he/she wishes because it has a largest vocabulary. In fact it comes from Germanic foundation, Scandinavian and Danish elements, Norman French element. This richness is due to the variety of elements of which English is made of: Germanic, Scandinavian, Danish…Latin and Celtic. Since English language is so rich in its rhythmic variety, it is a good language for poetry. This does not imply that England must have produced the greats poets.

It is generally thought that the greatest peoples excel in one art; in fact Italy and France in painting, Germany in music, and England in poetry. But, Eliot says that it is not correct because no art has ever been the exclusive possession of any one country of Europe and there have been periods in which some other country than England has been the major influence. Although a nation, which leads in a particular art from in a specific period, doesn’t necessarily produce the greatest artist.

Another truth about poetry in Europe is that no one nation or language would have achieved what it has, if the same art hadn’t been cultivated in neighbouring countries and in different languages.

The ability of European literature to renew itself depends on two factors:

• Its ability to receive and assimilate influences abroad.
• Its ability to go back and learn from its own sources.