T. S. Eliot' s intention is to demonstrate that the English language is the richest to write poetry, by writing an essay. Immediately he says that it doesn't mean that England has produced the greatest poets or amount of poetry: he just states that English is the richest language for poetry because it has the largest vocabulary. This is the consequence of all its elements of which it is made off: there is the German, the Danish, the Norman, the French, the Latin and the Celtic influence. But the most relevant goal for this language is its rhythmic variety: the Saxon verse, the Norman French and the Welsh rhythm and the Latin and the Greek poetry. So Eliot writes two other restatements: English is a good language for poetry because it is derived from so many linguistic sources and England has not necessarily produced the greatest poets. After that he makes another statement: it is generally thought that the greatest peoples excel in one art, like in France for painting, in Germany for music and in England for poetry. But he refuses that because art is not exclusive of a nation and in some periods other countries were more important than England in poetry. So he provides the example of the Romantic in the second half of the 19^th century. He gives the reader a further refutation: a nation which leads in a particular art form in a particular period does not necessarily produce the greatest artists. In fact Goethe is greater than Wordsworth. So no European nation would have accomplished what it has, as far as culture is concerned, if other countries had not developed the same art form. In conclusion the two ways to renew European literature are giving importance to the influence from abroad and giving it to the history of its own country.