If dirt is simply matter in the wrong place, it may be that digital texts can bear the marks of the world around them in ways we have yet to understand. 1 In defiance of the conventional wisdom offered by hypertext theorists of the 1990s, who installed a vaguely defined immateriality into their arguments about new media, digital texts today seem to insist on being troublesome in the same ways as material documents: they may change in form and content when migrated from old formats to new ones; they manage to get themselves lost (think of White House email records); they demand embodiment and constant attention in expensive mobile devices; reading them at injudicious times even causes automobile accidents. Digital texts were supposed to be above the messiness of the world, but scholars of electronic textuality, like David Levy, have dragged them back down to earth: Digital documents are not immaterial. The marks produced on screens and on paper, the sounds generated in the airwaves, are as material as anything in our world. And the ones and zeros of our digital representations. .. are embedded in a material substrate no less than are calligraphic letterforms on a piece of vellum. It may be true that digital representations can move around extremely quickly, that they can be copied from one storage device to another, even when they are separated by thousands of miles. But at any one This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and was presented at the conference of the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing in Toronto, 2009. I am grateful to Sarah Brouillette, Travis DeCook and the audience members at that event for their comments, especially Michael Winship, and to the many classes and audiences who have shared their insights on the Ramelli image with me.