In Chekhov's " The Bet ," the banker and the lawyer both learn the futility of their wager, as they have found that life and its conditions differ greatly from their more youthful perceptions. The lawyer learns that his sweeping statement that life on any terms is better than death is not true.
Full Answer
In the aftermath of this revelation, the banker feels a complicated mix of deep relief, remorse and self-hatred.
The banker notes that the lawyer is so emaciated by the end of his sentence that he is hard to look at, prematurely aged, and appears ill. This outward appearance contrasts with the lawyer’s own belief that he has bettered himself. He ultimately renounces the bet by escaping his cell just five hours before he would be awarded his winnings.
He has come to appreciate the real valuable aspects of life. In escaping his confinement, he actually saves his life, since the banker has planned to kill him so as not to pay the money he can no longer afford. The banker having gone into debt over the years seems to have become a slave to money.
The banker was a desperate man when he planned to kill the lawyer. The lawyer won the bet. There are things in life that are more meaningful than money. Time goes by slowly when you aren't busy.
In Chekhov's "The Bet," the banker and the lawyer both learn the futility of their wager, as they have found that life and its conditions differ greatly from their more youthful perceptions. The lawyer learns that his sweeping statement that life on any terms is better than death is not true.
He feels very sorry for himself as a result of the losses he's taken from gambling on the stock market, speculation, and various financial risks, and now he is almost too scared to assess whether he has more "money or debts." He even considers death as an alternative to having to spend the rest of his life in poverty.
Succumbing to the power of greed, the banker resolves to kill the lawyer to avoid losing his fortune, but changes his mind after finding a letter written by the lawyer where he renounces “the stuff of the earth” and declares he will break the terms of the bet.
In Chekhov's short story "The Bet," the terms of the bet are that the lawyer will stay in prison for fifteen years and the banker will "wager two million" (92). While the lawyer is in prison, he can have no human contact, but he can have "anything necessary--books, music, wine--" and anything else he requests (92).
In “The Bet,” when the banker sees the lawyer sleeping at the table, he thinks that the lawyer is a pitiful figure, and he feels sorry for him. This alone, however, does not deter the banker from his plan to kill the lawyer.
The banker felt that death penalty was better than life imprisonment. However, the lawyer said that if he had to choose, he would choose life imprisonment as he felt that it is better to live anyhow than to not live at all. This led to an argument, which transformed into a bet.
At the end of Anton Chekhov's "The Bet", the lawyer survives the 15 years in prison but refuses to take the money.
two million dollarsThe banker puts on the line two million dollars compared to the lawyer's life worth of fifteen years. For the next fifteen years the lawyer was placed in the banker's backyard without the knowledge of the outside world.
He is not doing violence to him; he is, instead, using a parable to disclose the man's true condition. He is showing that this lawyer, who thought he had a righteous place to stand, has nowhere to stand in his own strength but is in fact, like all the rest of us, lying face down and naked by the highway.
The lawyer suggests that the banker doesn't have the courage to place such a risky bet against him. The lawyer offers to give the banker two million if he cannot stay in solitary confinement for the agreed upon years. The lawyer proposes that he will remain in solitary confinement even longer than the banker suggests.
What was the bet between the lawyer and banker? The lawyer bet that he could stay in solitary confinement for 15 years if the banker paid him 2 million dollars.
The banker decides to end the BR by killing the lawyer. As he goes to see the lawyer he finds and reads a letter written by him. The banker doesn't kill the lawyer because the lawyer leaves early and ends the bet. Summarize the story in 5 sentences.
The banker notes that the lawyer is so emaciated by the end of his sentence that he is hard to look at, prematurely aged, and appears ill. This outward appearance contrasts with the lawyer’s own belief that he has bettered himself.
The banker further goads the lawyer over dinner, telling him to back out before it is too late. He points out... (full context)
Part 2. It is fifteen years later and the eve of the lawyer ’s release. The banker is distraught because he cannot afford to pay the two million rubles. ... (full context) The old banker fears that the lawyer will, having won the bet, become wealthy, marry, and enjoy life the same way he... (full context)
In the second year, the lawyer stops playing piano and starts reading classic books. By the fifth year, he is playing... (full context)
The Lawyer Character Analysis. The Lawyer. Just 25 years old when he attends the banker’s party at the beginning of the story, the lawyer initially asserts that life-imprisonment is far preferable to capital punishment.
Now he would apply himself to the natural sciences, then he would read Byron or Shakespeare … He read as though he were swimming in the sea among broken pieces of wreckage, and in his desire to save his life was eagerly grasping one piece after another.
All the wisdom from the books, writes the lawyer, is condensed into a little lump in his skull. He has become cleverer than almost... (full context) The lawyer has come to hold people who appreciate earthly things in contempt, and as such he... (full context) The banker has begun to cry.
In the aftermath of this revelation, the banker feels a complicated mix of deep relief, remorse and self-hatred. In the end, he is financially saved and yet, in the process, his own previous mindset (and his desire to kill the lawyer rather than fulfill the terms of the bet) has validated the lawyer's condemnation by revealing the banker's own moral bankruptcy. Thus, this encounter has revealed a deeply upsetting truth about himself and his own values (and the moral corruption, this story tells us, those values represent). His sense of relief and thankfulness that he will not be financially ruined after all only makes this realization all the more self-apparent.
The banker is also ashamed of the fact that money has become such an obsession with him that he can hardly think of anything else. The lawyer's letter in which he renounces the two million roubles serves to make the banker aware of the vast spiritual difference between them.
No doubt the banker is ashamed of the fact that his prisoner was, in effect, making him a gift of two million roubles when he should have been giving the two million roubles to the prisoner.
He even considers death as an alternative to having to spend the rest of his life in poverty. In Chekhov's story " The Bet ," the banker ends up feeling ashamed of himself. At no other time, even when he had lost heavily on the Stock Exchange, had he felt so great a contempt for himself.
Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.
In the time between when the wager is made and when it ends, circumstances for the banker have turned for the worst. He has lost most of his fortune, and , as the deadline approaches, he realizes that this bet has the potential to ruin him. Thus, to save his own financial situation, he determines to murder his opponent.
The banker thought that the lawyer was asleep, dreaming about the 2 million dollars, and he only has to throw him on the bed, suffocate him a little with the pillow, and the most conscientious expert would find no sign of a violent death, but he should first read the letter on the table.
The lawyer sat immovably at the table and read nothing but the Gospel. Theological and histories of religion followed the Gospels. (Need theology and history of religion to understand the Gospel)
The lawyer suffered severely from loneliness and depression. The sounds of his piano could be heard continually day and night from his lodge. He refused wine and tobacco. He wrote that wine excites the desires, and desires are the worst foes of the prisoner; and besides, nothing could be dreamier than drinking good wine and seeing no one. The books he sent for were principally of a light character; novels with a complicated love plot, sensational and fantastic stories, and so on.
The lawyer read an immense quantity of books quite indiscriminately. At one time, he was busy with natural sciences, then he would ask for Byron or Shakespeare. There were notes in which we demanded at the same time chemistry, and a manual of medicine, and a novel, and some treatise on philosophy or theology.
Six hundred volumes; a letter stating that the lawyer wrote it in six different languages. The banker was to go to people who speak the languages. If he was right, a shot was to be fired in the garden.
the lawyer is being compared to the man struggling to find something to save himself. The pole is salvation and he is looking for that.
The Banker probably doesn't have any knowledge of the Gospels.
Initially, the banker makes the bet for 5 years. He believes that the lawyer would not be able to endure 5 years of voluntary imprisonment. In the heat of the moment, the lawyer raises the stakes to fifteen years. He probably does this to prove how serious he is, and how much he believes that he is in the right.
Therefore, life imprisonment is preferable because you will still be alive throughout, and there will always remain the chance that will be freed. This philosophical disagreement is what motivates the bet; in fact, the bet itself can be seen as an extension of this very argument. 2.
At the end of the fifteen years, five hours before he would have gotten the 2 million rubles, the lawyer chooses to run away and revoke his right to the money, leaving a letter explaining himself. He has come to hate people and rejects the money on principle. This is the direct result of the learning he undertook while imprisoned: with his newfound knowledge of the world, material goods, including money, mean nothing to him, and he hates people for confusedly valuing these things so much.
When the bet is first made, the narrator calls it a "wild, senseless bet" punctuating his remarks with an exclamation point (7). The narrator is most decidedly not impartial in his descriptions of the lawyer's imprisonment, too, for he describes him with sympathy and empathy . Most deeply, the narrator is not impartial because he sometimes provides us with insights into the thoughts of the banker, which colors the overall narrative accordingly.
The banker believes that the death penalty is more humane than life imprisonment and argues that no one could stand being alone for a long time. The lawyer, on the other hand, argues that the death penalty is more inhumane than life imprisonment because you are depriving someone of their life–something that you cannot give back.
Q. The banker's actions at the end of the story suggest that he. answer choices. thought that the lawyer was planning to borrow money from him. had lost respect for the lawyer. realized that the prisoner was a nobler and more honorable person than he.
The banker was worried at the beginning of the bet that he would lose the bet.
The lawyer bet that he could stay in solitary confinement for 5 years if the banker paid him 2 million dollars. The lawyer bet that he could stay in solitary confinement for one year if the banker paid him one million dollars.
Although he was locked up for many years, the prisoner was never lonely.
The Lending Code 2012 permits the bank to pass negative information without a customer's approval, (32) although, the customer must be given notice of the release of that information at least 28 days before the disclosure is made. Within this period, the customer must be given clarification of the ways in which this negative data might affect his/her right to obtain credit. (33) This 28 day period will allow the customer time to make repayments or come to some arrangement with the bank before negative information is passed to the third party. (34) Conversely, the customer's approval must be obtained before the bank provides positive information in a reference. (35) Nevertheless, the Lending Code 2012 fails to stipulate whether the approval required of the customer should be express or implicit. As seen above, the law has been changed and the bank has no right to disclose or exchange customer's confidential information by relying on the customer's implied consent.
Given the above factors, it seems that the bank's duty of confidentiality should be maintained indefinitely, even after the customer's death, as long as the law does not indicate a specific time for the termination of the duty.
The objective of this study is to examine the ambiguities surrounding the disclosure of customer data to CRAs and to determine whether this disclosure falls within the interests of the bank or whether it needs to be approved, implicitly or explicitly, by the customer. Furthermore, it is important to consider whether or not the disclosure of customers' data to the CRAs is in the public interest. There have been concerns in relation to consumer credit records and banks provide varying degrees of customer confidentiality, offering contractual terms and conditions which differ from one bank to another. There is no uniform standard, and moreover no guarantee of absolute secrecy since confidentiality can be waived in certain legal circumstances.
The aim of this section is to formulate a clear guide to the avoidance of misuse of customer data. This involves applying article 8 to a CRAs' duty of confidentiality in order to protect a customer's data from any interference other than that sanctioned by the law. Finally, with the sophistication of the general law protecting privacy there is no reason to disallow the CRAs from being governed by the rules of HRA 1998.
Midland Bank therefore wanted to avoid involvement in the legal issue and so used the Bank of Valletta (National) in Malta as its intermediary to transfer ÂŁ13,000 to the BICAL.
For example, section 25 of the 1974 Act requires CRAs to be authorised by the Office of Fair Trading and, in cases of untrustworthy business practices and unfair or incorrect conduct, the Office of Fair Trading has the right to revoke such authorisation.
The bank should obtain a new consent from the customer if there is any change in the terms and conditions of the privacy notice.