In the book, The Wealth of Nations, what does it mean to "receive money by tale"?

Question

On Page 41, book 1 of the Wealth of Nations Adam Smith writes:
_{(Second volume of The Glasgow Edition of the works and Correspondence of Adam Smith)}

[...] Abraham weighs to Ephron the four hundred shekels of silver which he had agreed to pay for the field of Machpelah. They are said, however, to be the current money of the merchant, and yet are received by weight and not by tale, in the same manner as ingots of gold and bars of silver are at present. The revenues of the ancient Saxon kings of England are said to have been paid, not in money but in kind, that is, in victuals and provisions of all sorts. William the Conqueror introduced the custom of paying them in money. This money, however, was, for a long time, received at the exchequer, by weight and not by tale. [bold styling added by me]

I take it that the context is to appraise the value of the money being received, i.e. "by weight (of the precious metal) and not by tale".
So then what does it mean to appraise the value of some quantity of money by tale?

Answer 1

I think it refers to the archaic meaning of tale:

• enumeration; count.

(Dictionary.com)

• Money were accepted by weight (he probably refers to coins of gold and silver, not paper money ) in the same manner as ingots of gold and silver are at present.

The old meaning that refers to enumeration was probably the original one in Germanic:

Tale:

• Old English talu "series, calculation," also "story,....."to recount, count." The secondary Modern English sense of "number, numerical reckoning" (c. 1200) probably was the primary one in Germanic;

• The ground sense of the Modern English word in its main meaning, then, might have been "an account of things in their due order."

(Etymonline)

Answer 2

As indicated by @Josh61, "tale" means "count".

There were many different coins, each one having different designs, weights, inscriptions, and the purity of the metals (gold, silver, copper) varied greatly. The value of a coin primarily depended on its weight and composition.

Even if the weight and composition of each coin was standardized, Antique coins were subject to clipping and the most effective way to combat clipping was to have coins weighted rather than counted in transactions.

Answer 3

A relatively recent use of the word 'tale' in the sense being used here appears in Amanda Bailey, ‘Timon of Athens, Forms of Payback, and the Genre of Debt’. English literary renaissance, 2011, Vol.41 (2), p.375-400, p. 377. I quote it at length since it seems to encompass much of the discussion in this thread.

In this respect, Shakespeare and Middleton’s play [Timon] concurs with early modern economic manuals that acknowledge it is “not so much what money is worth in it selfe, as how it is valued by publike auctoritie, custome, and estimation . . . or common use therof.” Custom and estimation varied wildly, as coinage was valued in specie not in tale, meaning that the worth of a coin was determined by the precious metal from which it was composed rather than by royal fiat.

As I understand it, because the value of currency was not yet firmly established at that time (late C16/early C17) by fiat, counting (tale) the number of coins was not necessary - it was the weight of the coin which had priority, as if gold and silver coins (specie) had intrinsic worth, which could be assessed by how much they weighed.

Answer 4

I am wondering whether there is a spelling issue. There is a common Asian weight known as the "tael". Perhaps that is the intended meaning here.

Joel A. Adler