Tertia Pars
Lecture 75: The Annunciation: Mode, Order, and Wonder

Transcript
================================================================================

To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that the angel announcing ought not to appear to the version by a bodily vision. And that means, I guess, by the senses, right? For more worthy is the understandable vision than the bodily one. As Augustine says in the 12th book about Genesis to the letter. That's as he replied to Jerome, he said he'd been too sloppy in his commentary. This is the commentary of Genesis to the letter, right? Right down to the earth. And especially more, what? Suitable to the angel himself, right? For by an intellectual or understandable vision, the angel is seen in his own, what? Substance. But in a bodily vision, he's seen in the bodily figure assumed by him. But just as to announcing the divine conception, is appropriate that it comes by what? The highest. So, it seems that it should be the highest genus of, what? Vision, huh? Therefore, it seems that the angel announcing should appear to the virgin by intellectual vision, huh? Moreover, an imaginary vision, huh? Seems to be more noble than a bodily vision, external senses. Just as imagination is a higher power than the, what? Senses. But the angel appeared to Joseph in, what? Sleep. According to imaginary vision. This is clear in Matthew 1.20. 2.13.19. Therefore, it seems also that you have to appear to the Blessed Virgin by an imaginary vision and not a bodily vision. Moreover, the bodily vision of a spiritual substance stupefies those seeing it, right? Whence also is sung about the Virgin in this song there, huh? This is in my notebook. It says here, and for the, what? Feast of Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin in response to Matthew. Matthew, yeah. And that the Virgin, what? Yeah. But it would be better that her mind be preserved from such a, what? Disturbance, huh? Therefore, it was not suitable that this announcing come about the bodily vision, huh? So you all convinced of that, huh? Okay. But again, this is what Augustine says in a certain sermon, huh? He brings in the Blessed Virgin speaking thus, huh? There came to me the Archangel Gabriel, huh? Shining in face, right? Brilliant near vestments, huh? Walking in. Marvelous in the way of coming in, huh? My wife and I have got one picture of Annunciation there, you know, one of the, you know, in the bedroom there, you know. Very, very nice one. I gave a talk one time, the Annunciation. I just brought it in. If they're having fun, you know, I was getting the lecture. Talks a few words about how the pages had tweeted the Annunciation. They always have a symbol of virginity there, you know, with the flowers and so on. Yeah, it's one of the Flemish, you know, paintings. But anyway, I'll bring it in here someday. I answer it should be said that the angel announcing appeared to the Mother of God by a bodily vision, right? That's what he's saying, the fact, right? That's what the fact he did. Okay? But now this is belief, seeking understanding, right, huh? So no, Thomas is going to seek to understand why this is suitable, right? That whole convenience food, huh? This was suitable. This comes together. Convenience, huh? First, as regards what was to be, what? Announced, huh? Because the angel came to announce the incarnation of the invisible God, huh? Whence it was also suitable for the declaration of such a thing, or this thing, that an invisible creature, which an angel is, would take on a form in which he would appear visibly. Secondly, since also all the apparitions of the Old Testament are ordered to this appearance, huh? By which the Son of God appeared in the flesh, huh? Secondly, it was fitting to the dignity of the Mother of God. Now, this is the one to whom you're announcing, right? It's distinguished from what you're announcing in the first argument. Who not only in her mind, huh? But also in her bodily womb, would receive the Son of, what? God, huh? Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, huh? And therefore, not only, what? Her mind, but her bodily senses were to be, what? Refreshed, huh? By the angelic vision, huh? That's interesting, huh? And third, it was suitable to the certitude of what was to be announced. For those things which are subject to the eyes, we apprehend more certainly than those things which are, what? Imagined, huh? Whence Chrysostom says upon Matthew that the angel not in sleep, rather visibly stood before the Virgin, huh? For because she was to take a, what? Very great relation, right? From the angel. It was necessary or was suitable before such, an event of such a thing, right? By a, what? Yeah. That's the nature of man, right? We're certain, but we get sense. What about the first objection? Isn't it true that intellectual vision is more? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the understandable vision is potior, right? More potent than the imaginary vision or the bodily vision if it be, what? Alone. But as Augustine's, Augustine himself says, that is a more excellent prophecy, huh? Which has at the same time an intellectual and an imaginary vision than that which has one of them only. The blessed Virgin not only perceived a bodily vision, right? But also there was a, what? Delumination. When such an apparition was more, what? Noble. Who was the king there in the Old Testament who had the dream about the seven? The Pharaoh. Yeah, yeah. So he had the imaginary thing, right? And then the prophet comes in, right? And he explains what they mean, right? So the intellectual vision is better, right? So Mary had that too, but the one who has both, he, yeah. Now, it would have been more noble if the angel, by a, what, intellectual vision, it should have seen him in his very, what? Substance, huh? But this does not, what, undergo the status of man, the... The Viator, huh? On the road, that he see an angel, what? He's got his Danish sense of everything, he's got to be what? Theod, yeah. On the second objection, what about an imaginary version? To second should be said that imagination is a higher power than the exterior sense, but because the beginning of human knowledge is a sense, right? And it consists most of all, what? Certitude. He gives you reason for that, huh? Because always it's necessary that the beginnings of knowledge are more, what? Certain, huh? And thus Joseph, to whom the angel appeared in sleep, did not have so excellent an apparition as did the, what? Blessed Virgin, huh? Now you've heard me sometimes define judgment, huh? The definition of judgment. The separation of the true from the false by some beginning in our knowledge. So since the senses are the very beginning of our knowledge, right? It gives a certain certitude to the judgment, right? To go back to the very beginning of our knowledge, huh? What about this third objection about, it was quite a shock to have this angel appear to you, right? To the third it should be said, that as Ambrose says upon Luke, huh? We are, what, disturbed, huh? And we are, what, alienated from our, what, affection. When we are, what, bound, yeah? By the occurrence or intervention of some superior power, right, huh? And this not only happens in a bodily vision, but also in an imaginary vision, huh? When it's Genesis 15, it is said, when the sun, what, set, sleep came over Abraham, right? And a great oar, right? And the darkness invaded him, right, huh? For such a disturbance of man, not only what is harmful to man, it's not so, what, it's not so much harmful to man that one ought to, what, forego the angelic division, right? Now, how can this be? Well, Thomas is going to give a couple of reasons here. First, because from this same thing, that man is raised up above himself, huh? This pertains to his, what, dignity, right? For the lower part is debilitated, right, or weakened, from which the foresaid disturbance comes about, right, huh? Just as natural heat coming to the inside, the outside, what? Yeah, that's the, what, white fear? They say when you're embarrassed, you see, then it's not your body, but people are saying about you, right? And then your blood rushes out, you know, to the outside of your body to fight against the exterior thing, right? But when your body is being threatened with danger, right, then you turn white because your blood is going back to your heart, you know, to concentrate there to preserve your life, huh? They speak of the white fear, and the, Shakespeare plays upon that in the, in the sonnets, right, huh? He has two kinds of fears because, you compare it to the red and the white flowers on the sonnets. Very subtle, that Shakespeare, that guy. He was a bit, right? Yeah, yeah. I compare Shakespeare to, to Plato, right, huh? They're kind of unique people in the sense that they, they had both of them, some poetic gift and some philosophical gift, right? And it's kind of unusual, huh? They have that, uh, usually they don't go together. Poets, poets, poets, poets, what would you say, compare that? Plato and, in, in Shakespeare, right? Plato, yeah. I mean, Plato, I would say, is a philosopher, but with some poetic gifts, as you can see in the dialects. Yeah. And that's why the poets prefer Plato to Aristology, because he's kind of a poet himself, right? Mm-hmm. And there's a legend, you know, that Plato was going to be first a poet, right? And then he met Socrates, and then he changed his life, right? And, uh, why, Socrates, I mean, why, Shakespeare is a playwright, but with some philosophical gifts, you know? So, they're kind of, uh, unusual, those two guys, huh? Yeah. And he's very gifted with, and he likes the arts and words and so forth. Yeah. He's very poetic, so it may be his poetry, or platonic meaning, or other than his thought. So, Chesney, he was a journalist, didn't he? Yeah, I read across this text there, Thomas there, where Thomas is quoting Augustine, or referring to something Augustine says, you know, Augustine tried to follow Plato so far as he could, the probability of the Catholic faith, right? So, you kind of see that influence of Plato upon Augustine, huh? Mm-hmm. Okay. Thomas, too, is a monotry, too, if you compare his writings to his sons. But then again, it's quite a sign of that. Yeah. Nothing more beautiful than his hymns. Yeah. Yeah. I was reading the, uh, have you ever read that encyclical of, uh, Pius XII, Doctor of Liffelous? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's very interesting, huh? And, you know, he's in some sense more poetic, you know, than Thomas is, the way he writes. It's kind of beautiful, the way they describe him. I was reading this little thing on the Blessed Virgin, these four sermons on the Blessed Virgin, and really, I'm interested, and I said, really, in the introduction, you see the things they're saying about it, and, uh, when they refer to this encyclical of Pius XII, so you can look it up on, on, yeah. Actually, if you go to Pius XII, they're under the, the encyclicals under Pius XII, they're listed in kind of Latin alphabetical order, right? So you can just look down, you know. I think it's Mellifilus, Doctor, or something like that, the title given to him, but, but, uh, that name is interesting, right? Yeah. That's what you refer to, the poet, huh? Mm-hmm. You know, Shakespeare's honey words, you know, his honey, his sugared sonnets, and so on, you know, finding these references to these things, huh? And, uh, uh, that's what they're called a flosser there, you know? Now, this first argument that Thomas gives here, haven't you heard this described, you know, people like, uh, you know, like, say, Twis XII and so on, when they go into this kind of ecstasy, right, the lower part of them, their body and so on, is almost, what, weakened, right? Because, but the higher part is, what, raised up, right? And maybe they're off the ground, too, right? But, uh, um, and that goes with the game, right? Of being raised up, you know, to something very high, huh? It's almost, it's almost like you're leaving your body, huh? He, for it's very, when St. Paul has his vision, right, and he's carried up to the third heaven, right? Which Thomas understands is the heaven of the, what, first hierarchy, right? There's the seraphim and so on, right? He's really seeing in the passing way God and so on. But there's no way he's in his body anymore, right? So, your body's kind of weakened by this, huh? Second, because, as Origen says, huh? You're always quoting at our chair, right there. Uh, it's kind of interesting, you know, because, uh, yeah, a lot of times, uh, people who make a serious mistake there, but the faith, you know, we think, well, we're going to dismiss them, you know, I don't want to be that guy anymore. You know, you come across that, I just kind of put aside, you see, a guy, once I see some big mistake, you know, but... I see in the book Benedict's one, he's really, he says, I encourage you to read this great teaching. He sees him as the scripture, he's really, but it's really strong, it's really strong in that. You know, I've been reading, you know, again, Thomas's commentary, exposition of the Gospel of St. John, right? Of course, the people he refers to most are Augustine and Chrysostom, right? Yeah. But then, Origen's probably third in the dimensions, you know, when he's giving interpretations, you know, and sometimes he'll, Augustine understands it this way, and Chrysostom says this, and sometimes there'll be an Origen, you know. So, it's... It's curious, too, because when he gets to Tertullian, he's more, he's more cautionary, and he says, when I look at Tertullian, I always remember that, how cautious the theologian has to be, you know, and so he's a sobering, the humility that when he uses his mind, he makes sense, but he loves, he spoke, Origen, because his sorrow was fueled by the, his love of Scripture was the love of Christ, and he had that, yeah, so it's kind of interesting. It's two, two, two, two, Catechesis, I think, you know, maybe you can hear it. Second, because, as Origen says upon Luke, the angel appearing, knowing this to be human nature, right, huh, first, what, calms down, you might say, the disturbance of the man, huh, okay, whence both to Zachary and to Mary, after the, what, turbationum, the disturbance, he says, ne timios, right, huh, a little bit like, John Paul II, right, after this Polish guy got to eat, he, oh, thank you, have no fear, I remember to the Polish guy there in the, in the, in the packing store, you know, and somebody came in, you know, at the time, he says, you elected a Pope, I mean, a Polish guy, a Pope, of course, he thought they were pulling his leg, you know, he couldn't believe that, one of his own, you know, and one of our Maronite priests, his father is Polish, his mother is Lebanese, so he got all kinds of phone calls from the Maronite clergy when he got all elected, congratulating him, and he says, you wait, there'll be a Maronite patriarch, who's Polish next, that's right. I know when he died, I thought that Pratsinger was going to be elected, because the only guy who could be elected at that time, you know, but, but, but if this one dies, I don't know who would be elected, he would be, he would be, you never know, comes out of the, out of the shadows. Once both to Zachary and to Mary, right, after the disturbance, he says, ne tinias, do not fear, right, and an account of this, as is read in the life of Anthony, is not difficult the discretion of good and bad spirits, for if after fear there succeeds a joy, my spirit rejoices in God, my savior, right, Gaudium, right, from God, or from the Lord, we know the aid to come, right, because the security of the present soul is an indication of the majesty, right, but if the fear that was about remains, it's the enemy who is seen. Now that disturbance of the virgin was suitable to the virginal, what, their kundi, because as Ambrose says upon Luke, to trepidare is a virgin, right, to be fearful, and to be nervous at the approach of all men, and to the breath of men, yeah. But some say, huh, that since the blessed virgin was accustomed to the visions of angels, she was not disturbed by the vision of the angels, this is going to be interesting, doesn't name who these people are, but, um, my texting. Oh, he, yeah, he gives, maybe, sure, in the katana. Yeah, yeah, but, uh, doesn't name who they might be. Um, she was not, uh, disturbed by the vision of the angel, but she was in admiration of those things which were said to her by the angel. Now notice, huh, the term admiratio, right, as opposed to stupefaction, right? Because admiration is the beginning of philosophy, you know, a wonder at the beginning of learning, and stupefaction is kind of a, what, impediment, yeah, stupefied, you know, you can't proceed at all. Um, and why does she have this wonder? Because she did not think great things of herself, huh? That's a humility, right? Whence the evangelist does not say that she was disturbed in the vision of the angel, but in his speech. It's interesting, huh? So, you'd like to talk to this version about that. I think he has it in his commentary on Matthew about, um, Joseph had a higher vision of the blessed virgin, but she had this bodily vision, and he had this good vision of the dream, so, like, why didn't he, why was that appropriate? And, somewhere in there, he treats it, he says, because, um, the marvel that was announced to the virgin had no precedent whatsoever, and she had a great search of the sense, and she had no other index to go by. Whereas, Joseph already had the sensible vision of the one of his wife's friends, but he knew he wasn't the father, and he knew that she was still pure and holy, so he needed something, a higher sense of the vision. He didn't need the index of the sense, because he had it. But that wasn't so much vision, it was just a sense of the sense. I'll listen to the text in Thomas there in John, it's a little bit off, but, you know, why was John the disciple from Christ's law? Not the one that he loved, but the one who kind of told him to say, why didn't he love him in particular? When, when this text that Thomas says there, he gives three reasons, right? And one, of course, is the purity of John, right? The virginity of John. And secondly, the excellence of his mind, right, which went to the highest things. And then the fervor of his, what, love for Christ, he gives us kind of three reasons, kind of interesting. how they have in the Mass all the time. It's always the reading from John's epistle, right? Every Sunday, every day of the week, they're reading the little passage here from the first epistle, which is the main one, I guess. Okay, so up to the fourth article, right? Whether the Annunciation was perfected, completed in a suitable order, right? Que a deo sunt ordinata sunt, right? To the fourth, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that the Annunciation was not made in a, or perfected in a suitable order, right? For the dignity of the Mother of God depends on the offspring conceived, right? But the cause ought to be, what? Made known before the, what? Effect. Therefore, first, the angel ought to, what? Announce to the angel the conception of the, offspring than to express her dignity by saluting her. Of course, she isn't, she isn't agreed yet. That might be a problem. I don't know, we'll see what he says. Moreover, proof either ought to be, what? Omitted in those things which are not doubtful. Or, to, what? Go before in those things which can be doubtful. But the angel first would seem to have announced that about which the Virgin would doubt. And in doubting, would ask or seek, saying, how can this, what, come about? And after the proof or the assurance had been joined, then from the example of Elizabeth, then from the, what? Power of God. Therefore, in a unsuitable order, denunciation to the angel was made. Moreover, the greater could not be sufficiently proved to the lesser. But it was a greater thing for the Virgin to bring forth than from the old woman. Therefore, it was not a sufficient proof of the angel proving the conception of the Virgin from the conception of the old one. But against this is what is said. Hey, there it is. Romans 13, 1. Thomas loves to quote that. The things which are from God are ordered. Divine wisdom. Sapientist, ordinary. But the angel, however, is sent by God to this that he would announce to the Virgin, as is said in Luke 1, 26. Therefore, ordinatissime, most orderly, was the announcement completed to the angel. So Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that the enunciation, the announcing, in a congruent order, right, was perfected by the angel, right? For the angel intended three things about the Virgin. First was to render her mind attentive to the consideration of so great a thing, which he did by saluting her with a new and uncustomary, I'm accustomed. Salutation. Whence origin says upon Luke that if she had known to some other one, right, a similar speech to have been made, as one who had a now to the law, never would she as a, what, stranger, have feared such a, what, greeting, in which salutation is sent before the suitability to, what, conception, or conceiving, in that he said, grazia plena, right? And then he said he expressed the conceived, and I think they have a little footnote here, about future conceiving, right? He said the Lord is, what, with you. And he announces before the honor falling upon this when he said, blessed are you among one woman. So you've got to first arouse the, what? Yeah. And since that's the wonder he spoke about before, right? Here's the way it aroused wonder there in the Humboldt. I've seen Indiana, I'm sure, like this. He used to say, teaching without wonder is nothing. He says, even logic, you've got to... He has this one course, I don't know if you've seen it, the one course where he's hinting at this text in the sentences, right? And it's a text where Thomas puts logic with natural philosophy as opposed to, what, grammar, right? You kind of try to put logic and grammar together, you know? But here he's putting it with natural philosophy as opposed to grammar, right? And he's hinting about... This is... You know, he's trying to rouse your wonder with the fact that Thomas is going to do this. Secondly, however, he intended to instruct her about the mystery of the Incarnation, right? Which was going to be fulfilled in her. which he did for announcing the conception and the, what? Giving birth, right? Saying, Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, etc. And by showing the dignity or worth of the offspring conceived when he says he will be great, and also by demonstrating the way or the mode of conception when he said the Holy Spirit shall come upon you. The third thing intended was to induce her soul to consent which he did by the example of Elizabeth and by the reason taken from the divine what? Nipotent, huh? So he wants her attention first that's what he does first, right? And then he gives her the, what? Yeah. And then he her to ascent. Sounds. Or the tissime, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, now to the first objection here, right? To the first it should be said that to the humble soul, right? Nothing is more marvelous than the hearing of one's own excellence, right? For wonder, admiratio, maximae, right? Causes the attention of the, what? Soul, right? That's interesting for the philosopher because Aristotle shows there in the premium to wisdom that admiratio is the beginning of, what? Philosophy, right? And of course the great Plato or Socrates, huh? had said this before. That's in the dialogue called Theotetus, right? I think I mentioned this before. Where Theotetus is introduced to Socrates, I mean to, yeah, to Socrates by his teacher Theodorus, right? And Theodorus says that my pupil is something of a philosopher. Theodorus, right? Theodorus, right? Theodorus, right? Theodorus, right? And then they get into conversation, Theodorus, who's actually historically a very famous geometer, and in the course of the conversation, Theodorus is filled with wonder, right? At that point, Socrates stops and says, Theodorus seems to, you know, guess rightly about your nature, huh? Because he says there is no other beginning of philosophy than wonder. He's very, very strong about that, right? And then he has a beautiful, somewhat poetical thing, he says. And wasn't it bad, he says, but genealogy, the one who said that, what, Iris was the offspring of wonder. And I think what's interesting about it is that if you read the passage there, right, and you don't wonder, what does he mean by saying it wasn't a bad genealogy? The one who said that Iris was the offspring of Thalma, right? Thalma is where you get to be called for wonder, right? So who's Iris? Yeah, she's a messenger of Zeus or Juno. And Iris is also the rainbow personified, right? Well, of course, the first thing you want to ask is to understand Iris, right, before you understand the whole thing. Why is Iris both the messenger of God, the angel of God, and the rainbow personified, right? What do those two have in common, huh? Yeah, yeah. The rainbow unites heaven and earth, right? And the messenger of God unites heaven and earth, man and God, right? So why does our friend Socrates, right, say it was a good genealogy, right? Well, he's saying that wonder unites heaven and earth or God and man, right? Because wonder makes one to look for the cause and for the cause of the cause, right? And wonder doesn't stop until one comes to the first cause, which is God, right? So wonder unites man and God, at least on the side of his, what, reason, yeah. But it's beautifully said, right? But what's interesting to me is that he says, and kind of a way, you've got to stop and think, what does this mean, right? And if you don't wonder about that, then you're not a philosopher, right? You know? Because he just said there is no other beginning of philosophy than wonder, you know? People say, you know, they don't understand that sentence and they don't wonder about it. And they're not really very philosophical, right? It seems fitting that part of our eyes don't see. I don't know what part of it is. That's a good question. I would suspect it is a lot of things that ain't for me. Now, you see, in Shakespeare's play, where does Iris appear in Shakespeare's play? Where is it? What play does Shakespeare speak of Iris? I'd say Tempest. Yeah, Tempest, yeah. It's okay. It's also a young lady called Miranda, right? Oh, that's right. You know, it's just tied up to the word for wonder, right? But when he has this vision that Prospero, you know, conjures up with his spirits, and when Iris appears, hail, many-colored messenger. Oh, that's right, yeah. So you have the two ideas, the rainbow and the messenger, right? Hail, we're going to call the messenger. And you see, you know, the beauty of Shakespeare and Plato, right? Both a little bit of a poet, these two guys. So, admiratio, maximi attention, manimi facet, right? You know, and therefore the angel, wishing to render attentive the mind of the virgin, right, to the hearing of so great a mystery, right, begins from praise, yeah. That's kind of beautiful, because I mean, you could say it's appropriate that he prays her. I mean, she's praiseworthy. But I mean, but in terms of the order of it, right, huh? It begins from that, because of her humility, this is going to arouse, what? Wonder, yeah. And that's for make her attentive to receive a message that's so great importance for her and for the whole human race. Not marvelous. What am I supposed to sing? Grazie a plena? That's fine. It'll work. Well, Thomas explains there, one of Aristotle's examples there in the Premium to Wisdom. Because Aristotle's talking about wonder there. He gives the example there of the incommensability, you know, of the diagonal and the side. And he doesn't, Aristotle, explain there the significance of this example, right? But Thomas, in another text, he refers to this example as something being true that's contrary to what you'd expect, right? And Thomas is making the point is that we wonder not so much about something whose cause is unknown to us, period, but something that's contrary to what we'd expect, right? And then we wonder what caused it, right? So if I left go of this glass here and it fell to the floor, you wouldn't be surprised it fell to the floor. Even though we don't really know why it falls to the floor. And Einstein says, you know, he admired Newton for knowing he didn't know why it falls to the floor. But because it happens all the time, we don't wonder about it, right? Even though he might not know the cause. But if I left go of this glass right now and went up, you know, you'd wonder. Not only because you didn't know why it went up, but because it's kind of what you'd expect it would do. You see? And that's why I like it so much, you know, you've heard my wonder about the fifth theorem in the second book of Euclid, right? Well, if you kind of rephrase especially the fifth theorem, you know, speaking tragically, as Aristotle says, you find out that you can have a rectangle with less perimeter and containing more, what? Area. Yeah. And it seems, you know, if I give you some fence and I give myself some fence and I give you a greater length of fence, right? And then you enclose an area for your kids to play in or whatever. And I enclose an area in my yard, you're going to enclose a bigger area, right? Yeah. But I've got more land enclosed with less, and use less fence than you did. You spent more money, put it in terms of the American, you understand. You spent more money to enclose less land, right? How stupid can you be, huh? But anyway, it seems contrary to what? Yeah. That the, you could have more area for less perimeter, right? And therefore, I think it arouses, right? I wonder that theorem, huh? So as I transpose the numbers and I say, if the sum of two numbers is greater than the sum of two other numbers, would the product be more? You would think so, right? But the sum of two numbers can be greater and their product be what? Less. That's kind of strange, right? But it's the same principle, right? Just transpose the numbers, right? So 2 and 10 is what? 12 and 4 and 5 are what? 9, yeah. But 4 and 5 is equal. And you can take something, you know, 5 and 5, which would be 10 and still less than 12, would be 25, right? So the, you know, so it's possible to have, what? The sum of the two numbers be greater than the sum of the two other numbers, but their product be what? Less. The sum of the numbers, and people who don't have. The sum of the numbers, and people who don't have. The sum of the numbers, and people who don't have. The sum of the numbers, and people who don't have. The sum of the numbers, and people who don't have.