Riddles can teach us psychology when we stop to consider the psychological principles that make them “work”. This paper studies a particular class of riddles that we call stumpers, and provides analysis of the various principles (some familiar, some novel) that inhibit most people from finding the correct solution – or any solution – even though they find the answers obvious ex post. We restrict our analysis to four stumpers, propose the psychological antecedents of each, and provide experimental support for our conjectures.

Bar-Hillel, Noah and Frederick (2018) studied a class of riddles they called stumpers, which have simple, but curiously elusive, solutions. A canonical example is: “Andy is Bobbie’s brother, but Bobbie is not Andy’s brother. How come?” Though not discussed there, we found that the ability to solve stumpers correlates significantly with performance on items resembling the CRT (Cognitive Reflection Test) but not with performance on items from the CRAT (Compound Remote Associates Test). We report those results here.

While the Gospel of John makes some forceful and explicit claims about the identity of Jesus and the character of his mission, it also invites readers into a deepened appreciation of its claims. Part of its strategy for doing so is to exploit ambiguity and to point to what the readers do not know. The article explores three examples of this pedagogical strategy: the deliberately hidden identity of the Beloved Disciple; the initial deeds of Jesus, labelled ‘signs’, which, however, do not in any direct and obvious way ‘signify’ anything, as the later works do; and the question debated by the crowds in Jerusalem, of where Jesus is from. In each case recognition of the unknown can be the first step towards discovering Truth.

Persian arts of the book reached new heights under the patronage of the Timurids, in particular in the atelier of prince Bāysunghur (1399–1433) in Herat. This paper introduces a dual-text manuscript produced there in 833/1430, now held in the Suleymaniye Library in Istanbul, which has previously escaped scholarly attention. Up until now its scribe, Saʿd Mashhadī, has been known only for his copy of the Tārīkh-i Jahāngushāy of ʿAtā-Malik Juvaynī (834/1431). He has been identified with Maulānā Saʿd al-Dīn named in the ʿArża-dāsht, the report written by Bāysunghur's chief librarian, Jaʿfar Tabrīzī. On the basis of the report and a study of the calligraphy, I argue Saʿd Mashhadī penned a third manuscript for Bāysunghur, an early copy of the Zubdat al-tawārīkh, c.829/1426. This article attempts to provide a fuller picture of the calligrapher. A number of biographical dictionaries mention a contemporary called Ḥāfiẓ Saʿd, a follower of Qāsim Anvār, who was a prominent poet and riddle writer. Beginning with a poetic connection between the two names in a biographical work, and pursuing an in-depth study of his Dīvān, which, through riddles, reveals an association with Bāysunghur's atelier, I suggest that Saʿd Mashhadī and Ḥāfiẓ Saʿd could be the same person. Whether or not this is the case, this study sheds new light on an important but little known court poet and Sufi and a calligrapher in the royal atelier.