A proposed question

I dispise the Characte Aramis. for I believe he cost the death of his friends

Maybe he's just stupid. He shouldn't have told Fouquet, he should have known that Fouquet would be stupid enough not to go along with the whole thing. Aramis should have explained that it was to Fouquet's advantage to keep this king, and besides he's royal blood, too, so I don't see what the problem is. But anyway, if you ask me, they're both stupid.

I think Aramis is a little too noble and sophisticated to require a 'pat on the back' from Fouquet. I believe in what he told Athos (I think), that he greatly underestimated Fouquet. As he had just liberated Fouquet, who the night before had been arrested by d'Artagnan, I believe Aramis felt that Fouquet held him in too high a regard to turn like he did.

That is the question I've been asking myself since both characters left Fouquet's chamber that fateful day. In a span of a few hours, if even that, Aramis's well-conceived planned went awry, in my opinion, quite unnecessarily. I've also considered that, perhaps, Aramis merely did underestimate Fouquet or, more to the point, overestimated Fouquet's hatred for the reigning king... I do not, even for a moment, Aramis did it for vanity's sake or that he expected Fouquet to shower him with commpliments for his daring and shrewdness - Aramis may be ambitious but he is still far from vain!<br><br>Anyway, the most plausible explanation I can come up with is that, up to that moment, the true extent of his plan has yet to be revealed and, for the succeeding parts of it, Aramis felt that he would require the cooperation of Fouquet. Remember that Aramis intended to tell D'Artagnan, one of his dearest friends, about what he had done when he felt the right time had come. Why would he confide in Fouquet, rather than to one of his friends (who will surely would find a way to avoid forfeiting his life, no matter the crime they perceive committed), if not for the simple reason that it was necessary that Fouquet, the king's minister, be apprised of the situation? <br><br>It is incontestable that Aramis made some errors in judgment that were, in light of the fate that befell Porthos and Philippe, truly lamentable.. but i feel that it is to do Aramis, as well as Dumas, an injustice to suppose that vanity or simple greed or other such weakness of character is the reason for all the unfortunate events that happened. <br><br>Furthermore, to the end, I believe that Aramis, though he was overwhelmed by remorse over the fate of Porthos, still held on to his conviction as to which twin would have served France and its people better. And for that, Aramis deserves a vindication far more than was allowed him in the end.. Least of all, he did not deserve Dumas' allusion that he had no soul. <br><br>Aramis's soul is forged with the same kind of indomitable and noble fabric as that of Porthos, Athos, or D'Artagnan, although their devotions greatly differed (i.e. Porthos' passion was for the material things in life, Athos's was for his son and D'Artagnan's was for the performance of duty). I have no doubt in my mind that Aramis truly believed that he would have made an excellent pope - perhaps in the same fashion as the Warrior Pope, Julius II. And, just like his friends, he would risk everything for whatever he deems necessary. <br><br>Now, I pose this question? Why, of the "four valiant men," was Aramis not given a romantic death?

Hi there Ambria,<br>I am behind others in looking up info' about "The Man In The Iron Mask." <br>I've watched the 1977 (preferred) movie starring Richard Chamberlain as(Louis/Philippe)<br>& Patrick McGoohan (as Fouquet) <br><br>My interest is in the character of Aramis. (Bishop du Vannes) As you expressed a desire to explore this character in detail, I would be grateful for an email from you, in regard to him.<br><br>Sincerely, Louise.

Dumas has, for a long time, been a favorite author of mine. And you are absolutely correct in your remark. However, I never really thought that Villefort was doing anything to protect his father, but really himself from his father's dark political allignments.<br>In "The Man in the Iron Mask", why do you suppose Aramis (Bishop du Vannes) tells Foquet of the abduction of Louis XIV and plot to enthrone Phillipe?<br>Surely if he is worried that Foquet will suspect a fraud, then Aramis would not be confident of Phillipe of pulling off the switch, so, for me, that is not the reason.<br>The only thing that I can think of is that maybe Aramis needed someone give him that "pat on the back", reassuring him that he had done the right thing.<br>I'm writing a character annalysis on Aramis and I would greatly appreciate any input.<br>Anyone should feel free to contact me via email about their opinion.

I realize it's a year later, but this topic is worth revisiting if for no other reason then b/c I still remember that "Aramis, adieu for ever" is the last thing d'Artagnan ever utters. It's been approximately 5000 years since I"ve read this book last, but I still remember that.

Perhaps this is really a case of dissociating Aramis - the character's - motivations from Dumas' - the author's - motivations here. We have to remember that this book was at this point 3000 pages long (it was, after all, originally conceived as all one book) and so it had to somehow end. Possibly this was simply Dumas' way to "wrap things up". Also, I've often read that Dumas himself identified with the character of Aramis greatly (he's actually said that Porthos and Aramis were two aspects of his personality). Why would he then vilify a character that was actually so close to him personally? Perhaps he saw something in Aramis that he hated in himself. We will never know, I guess. Aramis's character was always questionable, but that's what made him interesting, and that's why I, for one, will always love him.