Pelikan's summation only reflects one possible understanding of the Latin teaching of Filioque. Essentially it is the position of Bishop Mark at the Council.. Bessarion has a much better grasp of the situation vis a vis Maximos than does Bishop Mark. So it is clear that Professor Pelikan's summation does not in any way reflect those conflicting views among the Greeks at the Council. Therefore it is inadequate as a summation.
So now "Pelikan doesn't present the views of all the Greeks at the Council because he ignores Bessarion's understanding. Oops, Pelikan quoted Bessarion. Didn't you notice?
How does the quotation only reflect Bishop Mark and not Bessarion at all when Bishop Mark was never cited in the quotation but Bessarion was? The whole quote was only four sentences long! (consisting primarily of historical citations, numbering five total).
Updated running tally of explanations of why elijahmaria's grasp of Florence is superior to Jaroslav Pelikan's, and why Pelikan allegedly didn't know what he was talking about regarding Florence in a quote consisting almost entirely of historical citations:
those few lines of summation [from Jaroslav Pelikan's book] are superficial and quite misleading
Your comments are superficial and misleading until and unless you document your vague claim.
First you tell us Pelikan's words are biased because he was Lutheran then. Problem: Lutherans affirm the same position as Roman Catholics by including the filioque. Oops.
Then you tell us you can't accept Pelikan's statements because they are too Orthodox. Problem: hardly a convincing reply in an Orthodox forum.
Then you tell us you can't accept his statements because they conflict with your Roman Catholicism. Problem: nothing more than a circular appeal to your personal religious preference. Fine as far as it goes, but not too convincing from an academic point of view.
Then you tell us Pelikan ignored Father Gill. Problem: he cited Fr. Gill Oops.
Then you say Pelikan ingored the gist of Gill. You were asked to be specific. Problem: you never provided a specific reply.
Then you are requested to provide the evidence from Gill. Problem: you don't want to type the pages.
Then you claim you're just making an assertion, Pelikan just made assertions too. Problem: Pelikan provided citations -evidence; you made an assertion that Pelikan didn't know what he was talking about but refuse to provide documentation after repeated request.
Then you are requested to just provide page numbers from Gill where you claim there is a specific rebuttal to Pelikan's quote since you don't want to type out whole pages of Gill. Problem: See next line.
Then you claim the rebuttal isn't just a matter of pages, but it is found plastered all across many chapters of Gill. Problem: credibility of supposing you saw a rebuttal to a small paragraph plastered across many chapters for which you can't provide any single example whatsoever by page reference.
Then you appeal to an article by Gilquist you posted. Problem: it's about St. Maximos, and we can agree with the quote (see my explanation posted above) but see nothing contra Pelikan's citations.
Then you say Pelikan op cit is inadequate because he ignores Bessarion's view, giving only one possible understanding of the filioque, that of Bishop Mark. Problem: How does the quotation only reflect Bishop Mark and not Bessarion when Bishop Mark was never cited in the quotation but Bessarion was?