The DF III 1 Strahov Manuscript, which preserves the only version of the Vincencius and Jarloch chronicle, has a rich and not too happy history behind it. For a long time it was housed in the Prague Chapter Library, from which it was lost under mysterious circumstances sometime before 1764. It was not discovered again until 1826 by Josef Dietrich, curate at Postoloprty, who donated it to Josef Dobrovský. Dobrovský used it for his edition of what is known as the Ansbert Chronicle and then donated it to the Strahov Monastery Library. If we follow the fortunes of the Codex before its disappearance from the Chapter Library, we find that this evidently happened "thanks" to Václav Prokop Duchovský, Secretary to the Archbishop's Consistory, who did not return the borrowed manuscript to its original place, and kept this fact from Gelasius Dobner, who was looking for the Codex in the library a year later in order to compile an edition of both chronicles. The motive for this behaviour was evidently their mutual poor relations due to Dobner's criticism of Hájek's Chronicle.
The DF III 1 Strahov Manuscript, which preserves the only version of the Vincencius and Jarloch chronicle, has a rich and not too happy history behind it. For a long time it was housed in the Prague Chapter Library, from which it was lost under mysterious circumstances sometime before 1764. It was not discovered again until 1826 by Josef Dietrich, curate at Postoloprty, who donated it to Josef Dobrovský. Dobrovský used it for his edition of what is known as the Ansbert Chronicle and then donated it to the Strahov Monastery Library. If we follow the fortunes of the Codex before its disappearance from the Chapter Library, we find that this evidently happened "thanks" to Václav Prokop Duchovský, Secretary to the Archbishop's Consistory, who did not return the borrowed manuscript to its original place, and kept this fact from Gelasius Dobner, who was looking for the Codex in the library a year later in order to compile an edition of both chronicles. The motive for this behaviour was evidently their mutual poor relations due to Dobner's criticism of Hájek's Chronicle.