Studia Islandica - 01.06.1960, Qupperneq 33

31
in which case Aesmund was rebuking the Archbishop’s
emissaries for not having apostolic or right consecra-
tion. It should be noted that Adalward, whom the Arch-
bishop had consecrated for office in Sweden, was a mem-
ber of the delegation. He had, however, never been re-
cognised by the Swedish king. It is therefore evident
that the legality of Aesmund’s consecration was called
in question. Further, Adam states that Aesmund ad-
vanced heretical doctrines, and, last but not least, that
he had had a cross carried before him. In the Eastern
Church all bishops have that done, but only archbishops
in the Western Church. If Aesmund was consecrated by
Hilarion of Kiev in the years 1051—1054 he may justly
be called “headless”, since King Jaroslav and Hilarion
were at variance with the Patriarch of Constantinople,
although reconciliation was brought about between
Hilarion and the Partriarch Michael Kerularios later on.
After his discussion of Aesmund in his book, Svear
i österviking (p. 147 f.), H. Arbman points out how
strange it is that Adam of Bremen should pay so little
attention to such an important trading centre as Got-
land, and asks whether the reason for this could be that
the Eastern Church exercised influence there at the
time. Evidence thereof seems to be lacking except for
the influence of Eastern Church art, which may have
come along the well-known route from Constantinople
and the Black Sea via Russia and the rivers of the Bal-
tic countries to Gotland.
On the other hand, Adam’s description of the city of
Jumne on the Oder estuary seems worthy of note. He
says it is a secure haven for Scandinavians and Greeks
alike (see Vol. II, p. 22). The Greeks he is referring to
were no doubt merchants from Constantinople. Helm-
hold repeats this statement, without comment, in his
book, The Chronicles of the Slavs (Vol. I, p. 2), but calls
the town Jumnete. This town is apparently the one that