Sir – It perhaps seems pedantic, but I feel strongly that what may be myths should not be framed as certainties. (I get cross every year when the BBC among others tells me it is Shakespeare’s birthday, when we don’t know what day he was born — only the date of his christening.)

I argued that any claim that Shakespeare slept in the Painted Room in the Tavern on Cornmarket ought to be framed tentatively as it seemed to be based on the story told by the 17th-century writer John Aubrey that Shakespeare had an affair with Sir William Davenant’s mother and was his father. Julian Munby (Letters, October 2) rebukes me for calling John Aubrey an unreliable gossip, saying he was a pioneer folklorist who saw value in recording opinions, and that there is no reason to believe Aubrey himself believed the tale. So that is three of us, John Aubrey, Julian Munby and me who aren’t sure about the truth of the story.

Jonathan Munby goes on to say that is no reason for doubting that Shakespeare stayed at the Tavern, and Aubrey had three potential sources for that. That Shakespeare stayed there is an integral part of the story about Davenant being his son.

It’s not surprisingly that three people who knew each other would tell overlapping corroborative stories — it all serves to make the juicy story plausible, which is what storytellers want.

If, miraculously, Shakespeare’s tavern bill was discovered, I would still want evidence that the Painted Room was the room in which he stayed. I am just asking for a little scholarly tentativeness.

David Webb, Oxford