In author attribution studies function words or lexical measures areoften used to differentiate the authors' textual fingerprints. Thesestudies can be thought of as quantifying the texts, representing thetext with measured variables that stand for specific textual features.The resulting quantifications, while proven useful for statisticallydifferentiating among the texts, bear no resemblance to the understanding a human reader – even an astute one – would develop whilereading the texts. In this paper we present an attribution study that,instead, characterizes the texts according to the representationallanguage choices of the authors, similar to a way we believe close humanreaders come to know a text and distinguish its rhetorical purpose. Fromour automated quantification of The Federalist papers, it isclear why human readers find it impossible to distinguish the authorshipof the disputed papers. Our findings suggest that changes occur in theprocesses of rhetorical invention when undertaken in collaborativesituations. This points to a need to re-evaluate the premise ofautonomous authorship that has informed attribution studies of The Federalist case.