It is moreover to be observed, that these etymologists differ greatly from one another in their conceptions; so that an unexperienced reader knows not whom to follow. Some deduce all from the Hebrew; others call in to their assistance the Arabic and the Coptic, or whatever tongue or dialect makes most for their purpose. The author of the Universal History, speaking of the Moabitish Idol Chemosh, tells us, [475]_that many make it come from the verb משש, mashash, to feel: but Dr. Hyde derives it from the Arabic, Khamûsh, which signifies gnats, (though in the particular dialect of the tribe Hodail) supposing it to have been an astronomical talisman in the figure of a gnat:--and Le Clerc, who takes this idol for the Sun, from Comosha, a root, in the same tongue, signifying to be swift._ There is the same variety of sentiment about Silenus, the companion of Bacchus. [476]Bochart derives his name from Silan, שילן, and supposes him to have been the same as Shiloh, the Messias. Sandford makes him to be Balaam, the false prophet. [477]Huetius maintains that he was assuredly Moses. It is not uncommon to find even in the same writer great uncertainty: we have sometimes two, sometimes three, etymologies presented together of the same word: two out of the three must be groundless, and the third not a whit better: otherwise, the author would have given it the preference, and set the other two aside. An example to this purpose we have in the etymology of Ramesses, as it is explained in the [478]Hebrew Onomasticum. Ramesses, tonitruum vel exprobratio tineæ; aut malum delens sive dissolvens; vel contractionem dissolvens, aut confractus a tineâ--civitas in extremis finibus Ægypti. A similar interpretation is given of Berodach, a king of Babylon. Berodach: creans contritionem, vel electio interitus, aut filius interitus, vel vaporis tui; sive frumentum; vel puritas nubis, vel vaporis tui. Rex Babyloniæ.