Tintin Forums

One thing I have been wondering about for some time. Tintin and Haddock discover the treasure in Moulinsart castle, in the globe. So Hadoque must have taken it back from the island where he ended up after he blew The Unicorn to smithereens. He must, therefore, have taken it from The Unicorn. But nowhere in the story is it shown how he manages to obtain the box with 'enough diamonds to pay ten times a king's ransom', as it is described in the Dutch version. I assume Red Rackham guarded this treasure carefully! Given the almost obsessive amount of attention Hergé paid to the tiniest details, I can't imagine he just overlooked this.

Thundering typhoons! Welcome aboard the forums, BommenEnGranaten!

Red Rackham's treasure was buried on the island, perhaps, and Sir Francis found it during the two years he was there, or he (or one of the native islanders he befriended, swam down and collected the treasure from the sea bed where it ended up after the explosion?


Hergé may have been a meticulous artist, but he was haphazard with details of plot at best - I mean, look at poor Barnaby in this adventure: he's shot on Tintin's doorstep, and then not heard of again, until eight pages from the end of Secret of 'The Unicorn', when Haddock finally tells Tintin that "the little birds man" survived, and he doesn't even get a proper name until more or less two pages later (or a week of strips in the serial version), when Max Bird explains about what Barnaby was doing, and why they had shot him, in a massive splurge of plot exposition that fills frame after frame with text, as Hergé rushes to tie up the story before he runs out of book...

And in the case of the treasure, I'm not sure it actually matters that much...

The treasure is what Alfred Hitchcock called "a McGuffin" - the item initially presented as the objective of an adventure, but which in effect only exists to allow the adventure to happen.

One of the most famous "McGuffins" (I know it's not a Hitchcock, but the principle's the same) is Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon - it really plays little or no part in what goes on, and even when the pursuers get their hands on it, they find it's actually a fake!
Even then, undaunted, they immediately set off again, on yet another chase, in full knowledge that it's the idea of the object and not the Falcon itself that drives them...

Hergé needed something to have the crew get involved with the Bird Brothers, then set off around the globe on an escapade, and the mythical treasure served the purpose. How it was obtained was irelevant to Hergé, he just needed a goal for those involved in the quest.

Jock123, thanks for your thorough reply!

Btw, in the Dutch translations the regular exclamation of Haddock is 'Duizend bommen en granaten!' which translates to 'Thousand bombs and grenades'. Hence my name.

Now that you mention the Bird brothers, I always find that a flaw in the story. In the end, before he passes out, Barnaby points at the birds and says: 'them'. He could just as well have said 'Bird brothers'. But I'm forgiving in comics, as you have always limited space and not all needs to match perfectly. Your explanation with the McGuffin makes perfect sense! They needed 'something' to go on adventure, and The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure are absolute masterpieces! I have been wondering if the name 'Rackham' comes from 'rack him', as the rack was a well-known medieval torture device. When he finishes his talk with Haddoque, he says - in the Dutch translation -: 'Tomorrow I'll hand you over to my men and trust me on this one, they know how to torture somebody slowly to death!'. The cartoon series ends it with: 'tomorrow morning, you will die!'. A bit more suitable for children probably.

At least I know now that I never overlooked some story element in the tens of years I have read that album regularly. Thanks!

The term "rack" is best known today as an instrument of torture, but in the middle ages it appears to have also been a term for describing "grating or open frame with bars or pegs upon which things are hung or placed" and also a "frame on which clothes or skins are stretched to dry".

There is also a village called Rackham in West Sussex, England.

Tintin's Rackham was inspired by the pirate "Calico Jack" Rackham who is best known for having two women among his crew: Anne Bonny and Mary Read.

Hah! So true! Yes - the number of mysteries and stories that could have been sorted out so much quicker if the dying victim had simply said what had happened, rather than coming up with a game of charades to pass their final moment...! :-)

I'd have to be honest and say that the other two meanings you mention are still in use, and probably far more common than the things you keep in your dungeon - clothes are still dried on racks (my washing is doing so even as I type this), goods sold "off the rack", and where would tool-sheds and garages be without racking for storage? ;-)

My take on this is that Hadoque must have taken the treasure shortly after killing Rackham, BUT it's important that we (the readers) don't see this. Tintin and Haddock think that the treasure is still on board the sunken Unicorn, that's the premise for the whole "Red Rackham's Treasure". So, Hadoque must have taken the chest with him, or maybe stuffed his pockets with the items but Tintin and Haddock don't know this (and neither do we). That's why they organize the treasure hunt and bring with them the diving equipment and that's also why they happen to meet Calculus and his shark submarine. But they don't find the treasure in the wreckage, just another chest which (we'll find out later) is just as important to the story. Tintin then get the idea that Hadoque DID take the treasure with him and buried it on the island, but after some digging he realize that Hadoque must have taken the treasure with him when he was saved. It's only when they're back home and Calculus has deciphered the documents in the chest found in the wreckage that they all realize the importance of Marlinspike (Moulinsart). And, because of the treasure hunt Calculus could test his submarine, which in turn gave him the money to buy the property! Pretty clever by Hergé I would say ;-)

And as for Barnaby pointing at the birds before getting unconscious, that's another clue for Tintin which he couldn't solve until much later when he found out the names of the Bird brothers. And as long as Barnaby was unconscious, nobody knew his name and identity. The most incredible bit in the storyline must be that Hadoque's Marlinspike (where he finally hid Red Rackham's treasure) happen to be the same manor much later owned by the Bird brothers! But then again, it's a nice coincidence (!) when you think of the importance Marlinspike has in all the following adventures of Tintin ;-)

Oh, of course! That's a very good point - it would have given the game away far too soon!

I think it's more necessary than clever, to be honest - the clever way would have been to find a solution which let Tintin and Haddock's recovering the treasure allow the Captain to regain the ancestral home.
As it stands, a second fortune has to be obtained from a third party, to allow them the opportunity to get hold of the original fortune. It works, but it just seems a bit too pat if looked at too closely (not that anyone on here spends too much time looking closely at such things... ;-))

Indeed, that's a good explanation! We shouldn't know he takes the treasure with him as then we know in advance the whole expedition to recover it from the Unicorn's wreck was bound to fail! During the days of Haddoque, it must have been impossible to retrieve the treasure from the wreck so his three sons must have realized it should rather be in the castle. They must have known the castle very well. It's a bit surprising that Haddoque doesn't just hand over the treasure to his sons, but as I said, in comics we must be a bit forgiving. Let's assume that he wanted his sons only to recover the treasure if they united, as it requires the three parchments to recover it.

As for 'Rackham', it's probably rather a name indeed. Hergé was always smart with names though, so I thought the name Rackham was a play on something as well. It is surprising when you reread stories at a later age how they shift from adventure and crime to reflections of the age they were written in. That's why they are still worthwhile to read! I'm quite an avid fan of Tintin and I have also read a book and articles with the backgrounds of stories. My admiration of Hergé has only increased! It's not an easy task to write a story a 4-year-old could enjoy greatly, but which is still enjoyed now when I'm 45.

We have had a debate on this issue: "Secret of the Unicorn: Why did Sir Francis send them to the Island". Enjoy.

Thanks for the tip mct16 :) I have gone quite deep into this interesting forum, but I hadn't stumbled upon it yet.