The further development of this process led to the curious but perfectly natural anomaly that the king, from being originally identical with the priest, becomes in large measure dependent upon the latter in his relations to the gods. In the more advanced stages of the religious cult, the king requires the service of a priest to act as mediator between himself and the gods, precisely as all of his subjects need this mediatorship. The king cannot obtain an oracle directly. He must send to the temple and inquire of the priests. The priest must intercede for the king when he throws himself upon the mercy of an angered god or goddess. The royal sacrifice is not acceptable unless the priest stands by the side of the king. Still there are traces left of the old direct relationship existing between the king and his gods. A god sometimes reveals himself directly to a ruler. Ishtar appears in a dream and gives him directions. Another and more significant trace of this older relationship is to be found in the importance assigned to the religious conduct of the king. If an individual offends a deity, the individual alone suffers, or at the most his family is involved in the punishment inflicted; but if the king sins, the whole country suffers, and correspondingly the king's atonement and reconciliation with the gods is essential for dispelling some national calamity. Frazer has shown by his admirable investigations[607] that this view of kingship is common to many nations of antiquity. While it did not lead among the Babylonians and Assyrians to that extreme which is best illustrated by Japan, where the Mikado, by virtue of his divine right, is hedged in with prescribed formalities that make him almost a prisoner, so closely is he watched by his attendants lest any mistake be made by him which is certain to entail serious consequences for the country, still the priests had to see to it that the rulers performed their duties towards the gods in the prescribed manner and with all possible accuracy.