scholarly journals A study in Authorship Attribution: The Federalist Papers

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nesibe Merve Demir
2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Antonio Miranda García ◽  
Javier Calle Martín

<em>The Federalist Papers</em> stand out as an excellent proving ground in the field of authorship attribution, being nowadays considered a breaking issue in literary detection. The crucial point of the <em>Federalist Papers</em> is the set of the <em>Disputed Papers</em>, twelve articles traditionally attributed either to Alexander Hamilton or James Madison. This authorial obscurity, together with the existence of undisputed samples, surely explains the proliferation of studies trying to spot the hand responsible for the <em>Disputed Papers</em>, particularly throughout the second half of the 20th century, both with traditional and non-traditional approaches. Since the publication of Mosteller and Wallace’s masterpiece, there has been a consensus as to consider them exclusively Madisonian (Mosteller &amp; Wallace 1963: 300; 1964: 16). Notwithstanding this incessant activity on the <em>Federalist Papers</em> as a test probe for authorial purposes, the use of Burrows’ Delta is still deemed a desideratum in the field, a technique proposing that the salient features which characterize an author’s style can be obtained from the hierarchy of the most common function words (Burrows 2002: 267-87; 2003: 5-32). The present paper then proposes the testing of Burrows’ model in a twofold version: a) modified Delta; and b) simplified Delta. The results come to corroborate the lexical differences between Hamilton and Madison, a fact allowing us to validate the hypothesis of the Madisonian composition of the <em>Disputed Papers</em>, exception being made of Paper 55.


1985 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 296
Author(s):  
Robert J. Morgan ◽  
Albert Furtwangler ◽  
David F. Epstein

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  

Americans typically view the United States as a democracy and are rightly proud of that. Of course, as those of a more precise nature, along with smug college students enrolled in introductory American government classes, are quick to point out, the United States is technically a republic. This is a bit too clever by half since James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, defined a republic the way most people think of a democracy—a system of representative government with elections: “[The]… difference between a Democracy and a Republic are, first the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” What the framers thought of as democracy is today referred to as direct democracy, the belief that citizens should have more direct control over governing. The Athenian assembly was what the framers, Madison in particular, saw as the paragon of direct democracy—and as quite dangerous. While direct democracy has its champions, most Americans equate democracy with electing officials to do the business of government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document