[POMPONIUS libro septimo ad Sabinum. ] §15.1.4.prPeculii est non id, cuius seruus seorsum a domino rationem habuerit, sed quod dominus ipse separauerit suam a serui rationem discernens: nam cum serui peculium totum adimere uel augere uel minuere dominus possit, animaduertendum est non quid seruus, sed quid dominus constituendi seruilis peculii gratia fecerit.
[POMPONIUS, On Sabinus, Book 7] It belongs to the peculium not what the slave has kept an account of separately from his master, but what the master himself has separated, distinguishing his own account from that of the slave. For since the master can take away, increase, or diminish the slave's peculium in its entirety, it must be observed not what the slave did, but what the master did for the sake of establishing the slave's peculium.
§15.1.4.1Sed hoc ita uerum puto, si debito seruum liberare uoluit dominus, ut, etiamsi nuda uoluntate remiserit dominus quod debuerit, desinat seruus debitor esse: si uero nomina ita fecerit dominus, ut quasi debitorem se seruo faceret, cum re uera debitor non esset, contra puto: re enim, non uerbis peculium augendum est.
But I think this is true only if the master wished to release the slave from a debt, so that, even if the master has remitted what he owed by mere intent, the slave ceases to be a debtor; but if the master has made ledger entries in such a way as to make himself, as it were, a debtor to the slave when in truth he was not a debtor, I think the contrary, for the peculium must be increased by substance, not by words.
§15.1.4.2Ex his apparet non quid seruus ignorante domino habuerit peculii esse, sed quid uolente: alioquin et quod subripuit seruus domino, fiet peculii, quod non est uerum.
From this it appears that not what the slave had without the knowledge of the master belongs to the peculium, but what he had with the master's consent; otherwise, even what the slave stole from the master would become part of the peculium, which is not true.
§15.1.4.3Sed saepe fit, ut ignorante domino incipiat minui serui peculium, ueluti cum damnum domino dat seruus aut furtum facit.
But it often happens that, without the knowledge of the master, the slave's peculium begins to be diminished, as when the slave causes damage to the master or commits a theft.
§15.1.4.4Si opem ferente seruo meo furtum mihi feceris, id ex peculio deducendum est, quo minus ob rem subreptam consequi possim.
If you commit a theft against me with the assistance of my slave, there must be deducted from his peculium so much as I am able to recover the less on account of the stolen property.
§15.1.4.5Si aere alieno dominico exhauriatur peculium serui, res tamen in causa peculiaria manent: nam si aut seruo donasset debitum dominus aut nomine serui alius domino intulisset, peculium suppletur nec est noua concessione domini opus.
If the slave's peculium is exhausted by a debt to the master, the things nevertheless remain in the status of peculium; for if either the master had forgiven the slave the debt, or another person had paid the master on behalf of the slave, the peculium is replenished, and there is no need for a new grant by the master.
§15.1.4.6Non solum id in peculio uicariorum ponendum est, cuius rei a domino, sed etiam id cuius ab eo¹ cuius in peculio sint seorsum rationem habeant.
Not only is that to be placed in the peculium of subordinate slaves of which they keep an account separately from the master, but also that of which they keep an account separately from the person in whose peculium they are.