The Vindication of the Bishop of Vannes

as to why Aramis revealed his scheme to M. Fouquet, here goes... The truth is 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. Like others, 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, think that 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! 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? 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 unfolded. 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. 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 don't doubt 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 was prepared to risk everything to achieve what he deems as necessary. Now, I pose this question? Why, of the "four valiant men," was Aramis not given a romantic death?