Seeking a fairy tale: The Trickster and the Prince
There's a folk story or fairy tale I'm trying to place, and have been for some time. I'm fairly certain its NOT in Aesop, Idries Shah's World Tales or the Grimms' collection.
There are elements in the Lazurus rich man/peasant story. I'm trying to recall fragments, and memory may be faulty, but:
A prince or king travelling through a town is asked to judge in a dispute over fraud involving a trickster.
The trickster may have sold a guaranteed mousetrap: a block of wood and a hammer, I think. The prince notes that yes it would work but its use is impractical.
The trickster tells the prince that his problem is that people simply give him what he asks them for.
The prince requests a demonstration. The trickster offers that he will convince the richest man in town to give him anything for which the trickster asks, but this will take three days and he will require some gold to conduct the demonstration. The prince agrees, providing capital.
The trickster, disguised as a hermit, appears at the house of a poor couple, begging for lodging. The couple take him, in feeding him. The trickster has disappeared the next morning, leaving the prince's gold as payment.
The next night, the same hermit appears at the home of the richest man in town. He is greeted by a servent who bids the trickster enter, remarking that his master has given specific instruction to admit one matching the trickster's description.
Inside, the hermit/trickster is lavished with food and drink and offered whatever he desires, including silver candlesticks, cutlery, plates, etc., in the expectation, of course, of lavish reward. The trickster disappears by morning, having taken all the household's valuables. The anticipated compensation is absent.
The trickster appears before the prince, showing his loot, all offered freely by the wealthiest resident in town. The prince admits that the trickster has demonstrated his claim.
To which the trickster remarks that the prince is wealthier than any of the residents, and that the claim had actually been proved three days previously.
Or so I recall.
Does this ring any bells?