Eiland and McLaughlin's translation of Tiedemann's edition of the Arcades Project is a model of careful, traditional scholarship. They include 41 images; each is carefully pinned to one of the notes as indicated in its caption, and they all illustrate what is being spoken of with drawings and photographs from the nineteenth century (the final one dates from 1908). Although also a work of immense scholarly proportions, Buck-Morss's The Dialectics of Seeing uses its 126 images in more diverse ways. Only half of them are period illustrations: the rest either point to comparable facets in France or Germany in Benjamin's time or comparable facets of our world after Benjamin's time. This very considerable chronological spread weakens the sense of linear technological development and dissipates the nostalgic aura associated with old photographs. Except for the 36 images of the Afterimage section, the images are each identified by standard "figure" numbers and referred to in the text, so that they do not float around like possible or oblique perspectives or tangential associations. The Afterimages are not "free" either: each has a paragraph spelling out its relevance and sometimes giving a note number, but they do run outside the scholarly convention that photographs and other images take us back into the experience of the writer or period being writing about. All history understands the past in terms of the present, of course, but standard image usage in cultural history emphasizes the specificity and difference of the past from the present. In the Web editions (surprise, surprise) the images are juxtaposed without caption to pieces of text; the effect is to free the images to be frames or counterpoints or comments on the accompanying texts as well as, or instead of, illustrations. I will develop this point in more detail below. Thus within Benjamin scholarship, degree of "anchorage" (as Barthes called it) by caption and figure number varies. At the loose end, the images move toward equivalence with the verbal "images" and the relation between them is one of juxtaposition or intercalation, creating gaps for the reader/viewer to bridge interpretively. To put it bluntly, at this looser, less-defined end, readers need to know more and work harder to connect and integrate the "images"--it is not a mode of writing suitable for introductory history.