116v

[JoJo_Jost]

I'm certainly no expert on the matter but my feeling is that 'pîne' seems a bit anachronistic (too ancient) compared to the rest of the text. This sounds like 12-13th century, not 15th. I'd rather expect 'peyn' here.

Not saying we should rule it out completely, the VM appears to draw from inspirations that significantly pre-date the 15th century. But it still feels odd.

That's not entirely correct; it only began to disappear in the 15th century.

Here are a few sources in various contexts:

Hübner, Buch Daniel 1660 (omd., Hs. 14./A. 15. Jh.): wie die dri kindelin | Bliben vri von vueres pin.

Jahr, H. v. Mügeln 60 (omd., Hs. 1463): der tochter und der ammen din, | die dich gebar an alle pin.

V. Anshelm. Berner Chron. 4, 477, 15 (halem., n. 1529): dass si ein oberkeit der stat Bern zů mite September beschikt, durch pin und kuntschaft erkundet.

Chron. Köln 1, 3867 (rib., Hs. 1. H. 15. Jh.): Syn herschijff quam(en) in me Rine | ind daden den molneren pine.

Koppitz, Trojanerkr. 3522 (Hs. ˹noschweiz., 15. Jh.˺): Flüchtig ward manig sarasin, | Ir wer und och strittlich pin | Waz als in flühen verwantt.

Neumann, Rothe. Keuschh. 4448 (thür., 1. H. 15. Jh.): ein grosse pin | ist dem tuvel, wanne der sunder ist sin | alss her das achtet in solcher masse, | das her muss van ym lasse.

Note: I don't want to defend this thesis so “strongly”; it is just a thesis. But I couldn't leave the previous comments as they were, sorry