	After discussing both Heminges and Condell, it would be remiss to leave out Richard Burbage, the most famous and perhaps most involved of the actor-shareholders. Like the previous two, Burbage was principally an actor and additionally a shareholder in the Globe and Blackfriar. However, Burbage was at once a more famous actor than Heminges or Condell, and played a larger role in shareholding. Burbage co-owned one moiety (half) of the Globe lease with his son, unlike the other moiety which was initially split between five different actors (including Heminges and Shakspere). Here we see an example of a dedicated and well-known actor in the troupe who nonetheless found time to manage a significant part of the Company’s business.
	So far the only examples of payees we have seen are those who are also fairly famous and close friends with Shakspere. However, a notable exception is Augustine Phillips, who was not mentioned in Shakespere’s Will, unlike Heminges, Condell and Burbage. Augustine Phillips was still a shareholder in the Globe, though he died before the company acquired Blackfriars. Phillips’ claim to payment notoriety is his arrest by law enforcement after the Essex Rebellion. He is thought to have been targeted because he was listed as the payee for the performance of Richard II. 
	 In our survey of various company members who have been paid for the performances of the Lord Chamberlains and King’s Men companies, we’ve seen strong parallels. All of the men who were paid shared two characteristics: they were actors in the company, and they were shareholders in at least one (and often both) of the theaters owned by the company. But the men vary in how widely-known they were for their acting, and so far as we can tell none were purely employed to manage the money of the company.
	Comparing this to Shakspere, we see that he also fits the pattern. Shakspere was cited as the recipient of payment once, for plays performed before the royal court. Like the other men discussed above, Shakspere is mentioned as an actor in contemporary accounts and later writings like Jonson’s folio. Also like the others mentioned, he was a shareholder in both the Globe and the Blackfriars theaters. So far, he fits the pattern we have seen elsewhere.
	So, is there any evidence in the payments made to Shakspere that he was not, in fact, a playwright, but instead a man involved in the business purely to manage the plays and money made from them? From this line of inquiry, there is little evidence to support this hypothesis. Instead, Shakspere’s infrequency of citations for payments, compared with the fact that many other company members who were principally actors and only secondarily businessmen or managers, points to Shakspere’s position in the troupe as completely ordinary. Though it neither supports nor refutes Shakspere’s role as a playwright, this line of evidence offers the still-compelling point that Shakspere’s role among his troupe members seems to be no different from any of the rest of them – either due to his potential writing, or his potential money-managing.
