Magalhães/Magallanes/Magellan

[Ludicus]

...meets the surreal Academy of the Spanish Right.

1 - An article published in the Spanish newspaper ABC (linked to right-wing politics) accuses Portugal of trying to whitewash Spain's role in this circumnavigation.

As the story unfolds,

2- Closing point in the controversy. Portugal and Spain announce joint candidacy with UNESCO

The heads of diplomacy in Portugal and Spain announced this Wednesday in Madrid the joint presentation of a candidacy for the humanity of the first circumnavigation after "all doubts were dispelled"

3 - BUT

But this month, Spain’s Royal Academy of History has reignited the fracas by publishing a report on the circumnavigation asserting that “the fully and exclusively Spanish nature of the project is not disputable”.

The right-wing newspaper ABC, which has campaigned for Spain’s authorship of the circumnavigation to be acknowledged, welcomed the academy’s report: “Any nation is very conscious of the value of its heroes and their achievements,” it wrote in an editorial in which it blamed Spain’s leftist government for allowing the feat’s national identity to be cast in doubt"

Portuguese commentators have described the Spanish Royal Academy of History report as a politicized document and they have pointed out that most of its assertions are not new.
Historian Francisco Domingues said that "this nationalist reaction is based on a traditional and old-fashioned view of Spanish-Portuguese relations".

Portuguese columnist Rui Tavares, meanwhile, gave an ironic perspective on the furore in Público newspaper.
"One day we’ll see Spanish academics writing to explain why Real Madrid lose so much since Cristiano Ronaldo left. Given that Real Madrid is an exclusively Spanish’ entity, that shouldn’t happen"

a) So, what are your thoughts on this?
1- The Right is right - Informe de la Real Academia de la Historia sobre la Primera

2 - Can we just get along? Magalhães/Magellan, surrounded by the best (Portuguese) cosmographers and navigators of the 16th century: Diogo Barbosa,Duarte Barbosa,João Serrão Rui Faleiro, Francisco Faleiro, Jorge Reinel and Diogo Ribeiro.
----
Just for fun,
Who was the first man to sail around the world?
1-Elcano and his crew of 18 men
2-Magellan
3- Henrique de Malaca.

[Abdülmecid I]

Unfortunately, pissing contests like these have nothing to do with the scentific field of history. Even the most innocent question about who was the first to discover something will quickly devolve into a nationalist flame-war. In the Internet, the achievements of Antiquity have been hijacked by Chinese, Greek, Iraqi and Egyptian nationalists, with absolutely no inclination to negotiate. Not to mention the legendary verbal diatribes of Romanians, attacking French and Italians about their linguistic decadence. The question of whether Magellan's expedition was Portuguese, Spanish, Nepalese or all of the above is baseless, as long as there is no bilateral consesus about the defining criteria and, in my opinion, completely meaningless. In what concerns the first adjective, I am certain that a Franco nostalgist considers the ownership of the fleet of unique importance, while a Salazar apologist insists on the nationality of the explorer being the undisputed priority. Meanwhile, I do not understand how assessing the national percentages of the expedition (66% Spanis, 33% Portuguese?) contributes to the amelioration of our knowledge about the history of exploration and colonial imperialism. I think there is only one possible answer: Magellan's expedition was led by a Portuguese sailor, helped by a crew composed of a mosaic of ethnicities, funded by the Crown of Castille, under the supreme orders of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, marked by his stereotypical Hapsburg chin.

The rest is irrelevant and only allows charlatans to gain points in the tribalism market. For some academics, whinning about Magellan may signal their career advancement, while, for the right-wing politicians, it will always serve as an invaluable opportunity to distract, lure and overall manipulate the mob. On a positive side, at least the ongoing controversy is slightly based on real facts and is not as arbitrary and bizarre as Turks and Palestinians originating from Sumer and Sparta respectively. However, I wouldn't be surprised if, in a few generations, the Lisbon-Madrid dispute was sidelined by Lebanese praising the Phoenicians and royalist Iranians pointing out that the Persian Sataspes had discovered the African pygmies, even before the Iberians had crossed the Pyrenees or Gibraltar. Anyway, there is no doubt that the first man to circumnavigate the world was named neither Ferdinand nor Henry, but Louis-Anthony. Why? Because might makes right and shipwrecks, monks and Protestants don't count.
*To clarify, I'm not attacking you, Ludicus. The comment is just a rant about how bizarre and potentially poisonous these dick-measuring debates can be and is not adressed to you. After all, this is why they almost always take place in the public sphere and never in university circles. Their real value is political capital and not scientific progress.

[Ludicus]

I know you are not trying to attack me, why would you even think that?
----

After all, this is why they almost always take place in the public sphere and never in university circles

But that's what I'm talking about.In fact, in this new age of the rise of the European far-right, the Spanish Royal Academy of History seems suffer from a misplaced sense of patriotism. To sum up, the Spanish Academy declared the fully and exclusively Spanish nature of the project.
Let's summarize,
In 2017, the Permanent Delegate of Portugal to the Unesco proposed the Magellan Route for World Heritage inscription. Part of the application argued: “Such an extraordinary journey cannot be understood without having in mind a historical moment shared by Portugal and Spain. Both were acutely dedicated to research and achieved knowledge about nautical technology, cartography and astronomy, as well as other fields related to the exploration of the oceans"...etc.
I see nothing wrong here, the Spanish and Portuguese foreign ministers agreed on a shared UNESCO proposal. Unfortunately, all their diplomacy was scuttled by the right-wing Spanish ABC, which blamed the "weak" Spanish Socialist government of that decision, and sought comment from the Spanish Royal Academy of History that... declared the first circumnavigation exclusively Spanish.

Let's hear Pigaffeta, in "Introduction and Life of Magellan",
"Though Magellan's enterprise was the greatest ever undertaken by any navigator, yet he has been deprived of his due fame by the jealousy which has always existed between the two nations inhabiting the Peninsula: the Spaniards would not brook being commanded by a Portuguese, and the Portuguese have not yet forgiven Magellan for having abandoned them to serve Castile. But Magallan really had no choice; for if the western passage which he expected to discover was to be sought for, it could only be under the auspices of Spain, within those demarcation those waters lay""
(From an historical point of view, the initial idea of the trip was to get to the Moluccas and then return by the same route-to cross the Pacific Ocean again)
----
In a nutshell...I'm not surprised. The Vox wants to "Make Spain Great Again", and wishes call to build border wall in Ceuta and Melilla. It also calls for the "Reconquista of Spain", to take back Spain from the "reds" (Socialist Party/left), and even invoked that Spain in Lepanto saved the Western civilization.Ortega Smith recently said that "without the battle of Navas de Tolosa, without the battle of Lepanto and without Charles V, I believe that all the women in this room would be wearing burqas"
He forgot to mention Charles Martel, who white supremacists credit "with saving Europe by defeating an invading Muslim force at the Battle of Tours in 734", a reference on the weapons used in the New Zealand massacre.

I do not understand how assessing the national percentages of the expedition (66% Spanis, 33% Portuguese?) contributes to the amelioration of our knowledge about the history of exploration.

Well, not the national percentage, but for some reason the great majority of captains (even after Magalhães's death), cartographers and pilots were Portuguese. Pigaffeta's diary is quite explicit. A Salazar or a Franco apologist or... anyone else should know that behind the concept of discovery lay Portugal's pioneering of the science of nautical knowledge.
In fact, other Portuguese who sailed in the service of Castile included João Dias de Solis (Rio de La Plata), Estevão Gomes who sailed the coast of North America from Newfoundland to Chesapeake, Joao Rodrigues Cabrilho ( California, San Francisco Bay), Pedro Fernandes de Queirós in the attempt to settle Solomon islands, the "discover" of the Duff group islands, New Hebrides who he named Australia del Spirito Santo, and others.
As the English (not Portuguese) Historian Russel-Wood put it,
"Today, when Columbomania is sweeping parts of Western Europe and the American Continent, and arousing an interest as consuming to some sectors of population as the recollection of "discovery" , and its legacy is distasteful to other no less substantial sectors, my purpose here will be two-fold: first, to bring perspective by placing the voyages of Columbus (*) within the broader framework not only of Portuguese discoveries, but also of the global nature of the..." etc.
(*) I guess that the same reasoning applies to Magalhães's voyage.

[fkizz]

Unfortunately, pissing contests like these have nothing to do with the scentific field of history. Even the most innocent question about who was the first to discover something will quickly devolve into a nationalist flame-war. In the Internet, the achievements of Antiquity have been hijacked by Chinese, Greek, Iraqi and Egyptian nationalists, with absolutely no inclination to negotiate.

The existance of people who disrupt certain discussion topics does not logically mean that the topic itself is meaningless or without importance. That's not a logical conclusion, Adbulmeci.

Not to mention the legendary verbal diatribes of Romanians, attacking French and Italians about their linguistic decadence. The question of whether Magellan's expedition was Portuguese, Spanish, Nepalese or all of the above is baseless, as long as there is no bilateral consesus about the defining criteria and, in my opinion, completely meaningless.

It has importance in distinction between the parts and brands for many reasons, one of them let's say, Cartesian method and Descartes, which influences Western thought. To analyse the whole you have to divide it in parts and analyse each part.. to build a ship, you don't just "execute" and voila ship built, rather it's a sum of many small parts. To say that all parts are equal would give you a sinking ship. Same thing for building a bridge, or a building. A brick is not equal to steel, and both are used in civil engineering for same project.
Ideology is not a reason to abandon Cartesian Rationalism.

In what concerns the first adjective, I am certain that a Franco nostalgist considers the ownership of the fleet of unique importance, while a Salazar apologist insists on the nationality of the explorer being the undisputed priority. Meanwhile, I do not understand how assessing the national percentages of the expedition (66% Spanis, 33% Portuguese?) contributes to the amelioration of our knowledge about the history of exploration and colonial imperialism.

We're talking events of Age of Exploration, where both Franco and Salazar didn't even exist, and would take at least 400 years to even appear. Bringing Franco and Salazar as a reason to invalidate debate makes as much sense as the same thing of accusing Late Medieval Age History enthusiasts in Chile of being Pinochet enthusiasts. Another emotional appeal, without logical following.

The study and measurement of History is not a sin, and it's not inherently "right wing" as you imply. History is what it is.

Are Portugal and Spain suposed to "apologise" for their Exploration sucess in the 1400s-1500s, simply because in 1950s they had leaders you consider bad? Why apologise for exploring the world?
Plus Portugal was more Sea-Exploration Centered, while Spain was more Land-Conquering/Exploration centered, for their ambition of Conquering the Americas.

Portugal had the ambition to charter all the coastland and explore the most possible sea routes (Sea based Exploration), while Spain had the ambition to explore/conquer the Americas (mostly land based exploration/conquest). That's their main divergence of interests.

I think there is only one possible answer: Magellan's expedition was led by a Portuguese sailor, helped by a crew composed of a mosaic of ethnicities, funded by the Crown of Castille, under the supreme orders of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, marked by his stereotypical Hapsburg chin.

Charles V spent most of his living time in Central Europe, trying to Unify the Kingdoms of Spain, HRE (Germany) and Italy into one, leaving Spanish/Iberian affairs to the Queen, Isabela I of Portugal, who happens to be a Queen coming from the Portuguese Court. A female, spending her time ruling the affairs in Spanish Kingdom, so Charles V could concentrate on Warfare going in Central Europe (due to Protestant movement being born and affecting the territory of HRE, Charles V being on Catholic Faction, needing to supress Protestant uprisings in Central Europe)

Now I could say that your reading of History is being "right wing" or "sexist" because it is erasing the protagonism away from Women in positions of Power/Relevance, but obviously I know that was not your intent, so I'll leave that as mostly a joke/reference to the cheapshot that it is using XXI political rethoric to invalidate History of 500 years ago.

But it is not apropriate to play on such league when discussing History.
So any counter-argument not based on XXI political agitation rethoric but based on facts if possible is what would be apreciated.

[Ludicus]

Plus Portugal was more Sea-Exploration Centered, while Spain was more Land-Conquering/Exploration centered.

Exactly, fkizz. Well, in fact, Portugal did all three, as explained by Felipe Fernandez- Armesto, an award-winning British historian of Spanish descent, decorated in 2017 with the Grand Cross of the Order of Alfonso X the Wise, "Spain's highest honor for contributors to science, scholarship, education, and the arts".

In "Comparative Dimension-Portugal Expansion in Global Context". As he says, brief excerpt,
"...Broadly speaking, there were three types of longe range-outreach available to imperial societies. They could follow trade winds (or all-year prevailing systems) like the Spanish and Dutch; monsoonal systems, like those that inflated far-reaching ambitions in maritime Asia; or they could expand to landward, like Russia or China in Central Asia. The Portuguese did all three".
-------
Frankly, how is it possible to say- in an academic paper- "he changed his name from Fernão de Magalhães to Fernando Magallenes... therefore considered a true Castilian" (...castellanizando su nombre portugués, Fernão de Magalhaes por Fernando de Magallanes...Se considera por tanto un castellano más).

A retarded "academic" comment deserves a straight answer. Why did Magalhães's Spanish officers (Juan de Cartagena, Gaspar Quesada, Luis de Mendoza) mutiny against him?
From the beginning of the voyage the three Spanish captains always contested Magalhães' right to command. In fact, the three traitors who had never been happy sailing under a foreign suspected he was leading them to captivity in Portuguese West Africa coast, and they plotted to overthrow the Captain-General.
In a meeting, near the west African coast, Cartagena reminded Magalhães that no matter how loyal to King Charles, he was still Portuguese - and ordered Quesada and Mendoza to stab Magalhães.They failed the coup.

Much, much later (April, 1, 1520) the usual suspects boarded Magalhães's ship and a new mutiny began again- a lengthy story worthy of a movie thriller.
How it ended: Magellan's justice was swift. Mendoza's body was taken ashore and accorded the ceremonial butchery metered out to traitors in the 16th century, being hacked into four pieces. Magellan condemned Cartagena to be marooned on the desolate Argentine shore when the flotilla departed; he was never seen or heard of again. Quesada was decapitated and also quartered. Elcano was one of those who were forgiven.

Food for thought: at the beginning of the mutiny, the odds were strong that the mutineers would execute Magalhães or they would force him to sail back to Spain, captive in chains.
This is the instructive story of Magalhães, "the Castilian" - according to the Royal Academy of History.

[Abdülmecid I]

Fkizz, I sincerely have no idea how your reply is even remotely relevant to my remarks. I read the text thrice and I still fail to understand how and why right-wing politics, Isabelle of Portugal, Descartes, sexism and apologism concern my arguments. To clarify, I was explaining how ahistorical and irrational the task of determining the nationality of a maritime expedition is and I was not debating the merits of the poor, little and misjudged Portuguese colonialism. To summarise, I believe the issue is flawed from the start, as it is based not on the science of history, but modern politics, mainly domestic ones. To be think, I think it is a disgrace that UNESCO, supposedly a prestigious, international institution fuels these unnecessary debates, but then again, my cynical and grumpy self could conclude that it simply confirms the tradition of the United Nations being a global joke of minimal significance and credibility. The reasons for this approach is that, firstly, determining the "humanity, nationality and ownership" of an abstract concept, like a 500 years old circumnavigation, is paradoxical and illogical by nature. Secondly, it is completely impossible, without firstly defining the criteria, something that, to my knowlegde, neither Lisbon nor Madrid did, for obvious reasons. Therefore, from this perspective, I assume that the controversy is nothing but a political trick, specifically designed to trigger the patriotic mob, which can only damage historical knowledge, in the process.

I know you are not trying to attack me, why would you even think that?

Well, impersonal communication is prone to misunderstandings and, to be sincere, I am a bit insecure over my ability to become comprehensible in English, without accidentally wrecking the syntax of my rant. The lack of smileys probably doesn't help, but, anyway, I am happy that my comment didn't come off as either antagonistic or outright aggressive. In any case, concentrating on the ethnicity of a selected number of officers or any other specific aspect of the voyage arbitrarily considered as of primary importance entails the danger of falling to the trap the Royal Academy proudly jumped into. The only somewhat objective manner of deciding the paternity of the Armada de Molucca is by detecting the legal successor of the Crown of Castille, the responsible entity for commissioning and funding Magellan's voyage, which happens to be the modern Kingdom of Spain. Even that approach, however, is not impeccable, as I explained above, and only results into triggering a bunch of Iberian nationalists, without any tangible contribution to the field of history.

[fkizz]

Fkizz, I sincerely have no idea how your reply is even remotely relevant to my remarks. I read the text thrice and I still fail to understand how and why right-wing politics, Isabelle of Portugal, Descartes, sexism and apologism concern my arguments. To clarify, I was explaining how ahistorical and irrational the task of determining the nationality of a maritime expedition is and I was not debating the merits of the poor, little and misjudged Portuguese colonialism.

1) You said Charles V was busy with Spain, however due to Protestant Reformation, and Charles V being part of main Catholic Faction he in fact had to spend most of his time doing warfare in Central Europe. He left the ruling of Spain in his absence to his wife, Queen Isabela of Portugal. The suposed "sexism" was an inside joke that you missed I guess.

2)It's good you openly claim you didn't understand Descartes reference, because it seems you failed to grasp where Cartesian method applies in History and in the Exploration period.

I can concede that Humanity is interlinked, but following your logic of not discriminating nations or ethnicities, for example, if considering the Romans and the Greeks and the Carthagians as all the being the same during Punnic Wars period, as to prevent "nationalisms" or "ethnicity-warfare" interpretation of History, such thing would only give us a big confusion. (And abandoning the "old solve a big problem by turning it into several smaller pieces formula" of Descartes).

In other words your demand of disresgarding the factions involved is both irrational and against Cartesian Method.

What I'm saying is that diferentiating factions and nations for understanding History and its battles, aswell as Military History is a necessity for understanding the field, and dismissing such faction differences exist, is it out of some supersticious fear and is not a logical argument, but emotionally/ideologically charged one.

To be think, I think it is a disgrace that UNESCO, supposedly aprestigious, international institution fuels these unnecessary debates, but then again, my cynical and grumpy self could conclude that it simply confirms the tradition of the United Nations being a global joke of minimal significance and credibility. The reasons for this approach is that, firstly, determining the "humanity, nationality and ownership" of an abstract concept, like a 500 years old circumnavigation, is paradoxical and illogical by nature.

See the underline? More appeals to emotion from your part. Your point is basically venting emotions rather than a well constructed logical inference.
I'm not a Globalist but UN is very important as a Diplomatic tool. It's a deterrent to vent at least some steam in speech/debates rather than with bullets and grenades.

Secondly, it is completely impossible, without firstly defining the criteria, something that, to my knowlegde, neither Lisbon nor Madrid did, for obvious reasons. Therefore, from this perspective, I assume that the controversy is nothing but a political trick, specifically designed to trigger the patriotic mob, which can only damage historical knowledge, in the process.

Studying History often brings up controversial issues, that just don't heat up because they happened way too long ago. The conspiracy theory that debating Age of Exploration is a "political trick" to "trigger the patriotic mob" is Supersticious at best.
Putting a Taboo on debating Age of Exploration is a loss to understanding the progress and sacrifices done by Humanity in understanding the World around them.
It's also a loss to understand the motivations of Humanity in discovering/understanding their surroundings.

Would be similiar to saying that it's irrational or dangerous to classify the USA/USSR factions as "different" during the Space Race period.

Even that approach, however, is not impeccable, as I explained above, and only results into triggering a bunch of Iberian nationalists, without any tangible contribution to the field of history.

I don't know if you are just not in your best posting moments or joking/trolling around for a bit, mainly given there's no "Iberian Nation" and no risk of "Iberian Nationalists" for that nationality is non-existant.

So what to consider your want for the UN to not have history debates out of fear of nationalism for a nation that does even not exist?

Now I've read plenty of your posts Abdulmecid, and I know they often have coherent logic behind them, and have quality, but you can do better than in this case, which is not at your best.

[Abdülmecid I]

That's not how adjectives work, fkizz. When I say a "blue-eyed politician" and an "old patriot", I do not mean an orator fighting for the interests of cyan-coloured eyeballs or a chauvinist defender of the pensioners. So, "Iberian nationalists" means nationalists originating from Iberia, a category which can include the Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Galician, Basque and other species. I suppose that by "Descartes' method", you mean Cartesian Doubt, so feel free to show how it is relevant to the debate. In general, your second comment was as relevant to my arguments as the previous one. I'm not sure whether you genuinely misunderstand my position or you intentionally misconstruct it into an obviously stereotypical version of "liberal" criticism against Portuguese colonialism. In any case, I don't see the point of repeating my reasoning in a detailed manner thrice. To sum up, the piss contest between Spanish and Portuguese nationalists, with the collaboration of UNESCO, is methodologically absurd and therefore, from the perspective of the scientific field of history, completely ridiculous.

[mishkin]

when you see the nationalists of one side boast stupidly you can only laugh at them, rebut them or take an equally stupid position from your own nationalist side.

[Ludicus]

@ Abdulmecid I

..the piss contest between Spanish and Portuguese nationalists, with the collaboration of UNESCO.

Not exactly. With the help of the reactionary ABC and the collaboration of Spanish Academy. For some reason, UNESCO has an World Heritage Center. In fact, everything started with a political attack, the conservative ABC blamed the weak leftist (sic) Spanish government in power...

The only somewhat objective manner of deciding the paternity of the Armada de Molucca is by detecting the legal successor of the Crown of Castille, the responsible entity for commissioning and funding Magellan's voyage, which happens to be the modern Kingdom of Spain.

We know who commissioned the voyage, that's not the point. We also know that according the Spanish Academy, Magalhães was Castilian. Really important, really important, as they say...

Y algo muy importante: cuando antes de partir la expedición dictó y firmó su testamento en el Alcázar de Sevilla, instituyó un mayorazgo en el que dejaba heredero a su hijo Rodrigo, nacido en Sevilla y, si éste falleciese sin descendencia, impone a su familia portuguesa que quien lo herede debería castellanizar su apellido, llevar sus armas y vivir en Castilla. Se considera por tanto un castellano más.

Under the umbrella of an apparent supranational neutrality, I'm under the impression that you are siding with the Spanish Academy...both of you dodging the fact that without the Portuguese maritime knowledge, there will be no Magalhães voyage.
In fact, Josep Borrell rightly described the joint initiative as "a tribute from the Iberian Peninsula" to the feat of these sailors who opened new maritime routes. He also rightly emphasized the "intellectual component of the fact that this was the beginning of globalization" (*)

....I was not debating the merits of the poor, little and misjudged Portuguese colonialism...

Haha. Mentionating, adjectivating, but not debating.
In fact, that's an interesting topic, for another thread. Is there any difference between the merits of the" poor, misjudged, little Portuguese colonialism" and the Spanish, British and Dutch colonialism? A funny pissing contest, "my colonialism was better than yours"...Ok, I'm ready.
I know, we still hear the idea that Portuguese colonialism was benevolent and gentle. Not exactly, but it was not better or worse. It was different, even in positive and negative ways. But again,that is a different topic. In fact, it's widely accepted by historians that there is a huge difference between the merits of the Western Maritime Discoveries and the merits /demerits of the European colonization.

It's not a nationalist approach to discuss the role of the Portuguese and Spanish in exploring and mapping the word.It was the process of globalization that gave origin to the international system, when the continents began to interact, approximately 500 years ago. It is a historic process that began with the great geographical discoveries achieved by Portuguese - and Castilian ships in Africa, Asia, Americas and Oceania.

(*)I think you should read a seminal work written by Donald Lach "Asia in the Making of Europe". The Volume I: The Century of Discovery (two books) brings together "everything that a European could know of India, Southeast Asia, China, and Japan, from printed books, missionary reports, traders’ accounts and maps". The Volume II: A Century of Wonder ( three books) examines the influence of that vast new body of information about Asia on the arts, institutions, literatures, and ideas of sixteenth-century Europe. In the volume III In Volume III: A Century of Advance, ( four books) the authors have researched seventeenth-century European writings on Asia in an effort to understand how contemporaries saw Asian societies and peoples.
Book review, Joseph Needham , Lu Gwei-Djen - The Journal of Asian Studies
Vol. 38, No. 2 (Feb., 1979), pp. 313-315 Asia in the Making of Europe. Volume II: A Century of Wonder ... - jstor
I

t's telling that in the book Asia in the Making of Europe. Volume II: A Century of Wonder. by Donald F. Lach. Portugal has pride of place; the literature in that language gets 122 pages, as compared with 34 for Spanish, 56 for Italian, 70 for French, and 70 for all the Northern European languages

Tell me, is this a nationalist approach? or is just the recognition of the "intellectual component of the fact that this was the beginning of globalization", as the Spanish Foreign Minister Borrel put it?
----
PS. I don't know what going on, I'm not able to quote or edit. I'm reading a recurring message: Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_block.php on line...
Can someone help me?