have I myself been sorely puzzled, and which, I think, has not been
satisfactorily cleared up by any of those who have attempted it. Following
the authority of Skinner, our philologists are satisfied with assuring us,
that _pilled_ means bald (French, pelé) and about this there can be no
dispute. Thus Chaucer (Reve's Tale) says:--

Round was his face, and camuse was his nose,
And _pilled_ as an ape was his skull."

Shakspeare also has:--

"Pieled priest! doost thou command me to be shut out?"

for "shaven priest." But _pilled_, in other cases as might be shown by
quotations, which for the sake of brevity I omit, means _pillaged_,
_robbed_, and also _peeled_, of which last sense the quotations above given
seem only to be a figurative application. The difficulties which arise from
these explanations are, first, if _bald_ be the true meaning, why must we,
with Todd, limit it to baldness, resulting from disease, or more especially
(as Grose will have it) from a disgraceful disease?

Secondly, if _peeled_ be taken as the equivalent to _pilled_, why is peeled
garlick a more perfect type of misery than any other peeled root or fruit?

Thirdly, if _pillage_ is an essential ingredient in the true meaning of the
term "pilled garlick," what has the stolen garlick to do with wretchedness?
And,

Lastly, how will any one, or all of these explanations together, tally with
the following passage from Skelton:--