I now return to the _Quem quaeritis_ in the second stage of its evolution, when it had ceased to be an _Introit_ trope and had become attached to the ceremony of the sepulchre. Obviously it is not an essential part of that ceremony. The _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_ mutually presuppose each other and, together, are complete. For the dramatic performance, as described by St. Ethelwold, the clergy, having removed the cross at the beginning of Matins, revisited the empty sepulchre quite at the close of that service, after the third respond[91], between which and the normal ending of Matins, the _Te Deum_, the _Quem quaeritis_ was intercalated. The fact that the Maries bear censers instead of or in addition to the scriptural spices, suggests that this _Visitatio_ grew out of a custom of censing the sepulchre at the end of Matins as well as of Evensong[92]. But the _Visitatio_ could easily be omitted, and in fact it was omitted in many churches where the _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_ were in use. The Sarum books, for instance, do not in any way prescribe it. On the other hand, there were probably a few churches which adopted the _Visitatio_ without the more important rite. Bamberg seems to have been one of these, and so possibly were Sens, Senlis, and one or two others in which the _Quem quaeritis_ is noted as taking place at an altar[93]. However, whether there was a real sepulchre or not, the regular place of the _Quem quaeritis_ was that prescribed for it by St. Ethelwold, between the third respond and the _Te Deum_ at Matins. It has been found in a very large number of manuscripts, and in by far the greater part of them it occupies this position[94]. In the rest, with the exception of a completely anomalous example from Vienne[95], it is either a trope[96], or else is merged with or immediately follows the _Elevatio_ before Matins[97]. The evidence of the texts themselves is borne out by Durandus, who is aware of the variety of custom, and indicates the end of Matins as the _proprior locus_[98].