Nevertheless it is undoubted that the main factor in the new Romantic attitude towards old words had been the eighteenth century imitations and collections of our older English literature. Coleridge, it is to be remembered, made free use of archaisms; in the “Ancient Mariner,” there are many obsolete forms: _loon_, _eftsoons_, _uprist_, _gramercy_, _gossameres_, _corse_, etc., besides those which appeared in the first edition, and were altered or omitted when the poem reappeared in 1800. Wordsworth, it is true, made no use of archaic diction, whether in the form of deliberate revivals, or by drafts on the dialects, which, following the great example of Burns, and in virtue of his own “theories,” he might have been expected to explore. Nevertheless the “theories” concerning poetical language which he propounded and maintained are not without their bearing on the present question. Reduced to their simplest terms, the manifestoes, while passing judgment on the conventional poetical diction, conceded to the poet the right of a style in keeping with his subject and inspiration, and Wordsworth’s successors for the most part, so far as style in the narrower sense of _vocabulary_ is concerned, did not fail to reap the benefits of the emancipation won for them. And among the varied sources upon which they began to draw for fresh reserves of diction were the abundant stores of old words, full of colour and energy, to be gleaned from the pages of their great predecessors. CHAPTER VI COMPOUND EPITHETS IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY POETRY It is proposed in this chapter to examine in some detail the use of compound epithets in the poetry of the eighteenth century. For this purpose the following grammatical scheme of classification has been adopted from various sources:[160] _First Type_, noun _plus_ noun; _Second Type_, noun _plus_ adjective; _Third Type_, noun _plus_ present participle; _Fourth Type_, noun _plus_ past participle; _Fifth Type_, adjective, or adjective used adverbially, _plus_ another part of speech, usually a participle; _Sixth Type_, true adverb _plus_ a participle; _Seventh Type_, adjective _plus_ noun plus -_ed_. Of these types it will be evident in many cases that the first (noun _plus_ noun) and the sixth (true adverb _plus_ participle) are not compounds at all, for the hyphen could often be removed without any change or loss of meaning. Occasionally the compounds will be regarded from the point of view of the logical relation between the two elements, when a formal classification may usually be made as follows: (_a_) _Attributive_, as in “anger-glow”; (_b_) _Objective_, as in “anger-kindling”; (_c_) _Instrumental_, as in “anger-boiling.” This scheme of classification permits of an examination of the compounds from the formal point of view, whilst at the same time it does not preclude an estimate of the æsthetic value of the new words thus added to the language of poetry.[161]