	In order to defend the hypothesis that Shakspere handled the distribution and business of the plays instead of concerning himself with their writing or content, we must follow the money. Unfortunately, we have few records of payment for publication of the plays. But we have the bills documenting payment, especially by the royal court, to the companies for performing their plays. In order to support Shakspere’s role as a businessman and money-handler, we should see some monetary distinction between the frequency, context, or language that cite him on the bills in contrast to other actors or playwrights of the time. If Shakspere is cited in similar ways or frequencies as actors or playwrights, we can assume that he, too, was acting as one of these. But if instead Shakspere’s body of evidence lines up more closely with other members of the troupe that we know to be associated with the business or money-managing side of the company, we might have some reasonable evidence that Shakspere, too, was a businessman rather than an actor.
	To interrogate this question, we will look systematically through some of the members most commonly receiving payments and examine how and how often they were cited. To this end, we will examine John Hemminges, Henry Condell, Richard Burbage, and Augustine Phillips and later compare them to Shakspere himself.
	John Hemminges is the man commonly listed on the payments. He is cited multiple times on documents we still have access to, for performances before ambassadors and others. Of the primary documents I found, he is listed three times as being paid for the company’s presentation of plays to the royal court. In Jonson’s folio, he is further listed as an actor for two of the listed plays (both times along with Shakspere). He is even mentioned in a contemporary balland, which suggests that he might have been well-known enough as an actor to have attracted some popularity. Finally, he is one of the co-founders and signatories on the lease of the Globe and Blackfriar theaters, cementing his claim to at least some of the financial side of the company. Overall, we see that Hemminges was involved in money-managing for the company, but also concretely an actor. The frequency of his listing on payments to the company set him somewhat apart from the other actors, but does not discount his simultaneous thespian career.
	A parallel, but contrasting example of a company member’s relationship to money is Henry Condell. Unlike Hemminges, Condell wasn’t listed on payment documents particularly frequently. Instead, he was more well-known as an actor, and was a late-comer to the shareholder side of business, since he did not originally own any stake in the Globe. He would, however, later become a shareholder in both the Globe and Blackfriar theaters, just like Hemminges. Like Hemminges, Condell would also eventually become quite close with Shakspere, being included in his will as the recipient of a mourning ring. Condell is a relevant example of a company member who was primarily an actor, and more famous for that part of his life, but was nonetheless occasionally listed as receiving payments for plays put on by the company.
