 according to both Jonathan Bate and Jacques Berthoud, the Goths at the end of the play are not the same Goths who had been led by Tamora. Bate believes the play "begins with a Roman stigmatisation of the Goths as barbarians, but modulates towards a very different view. If the Second Goth is a barbarian, what is he doing gazing "upon a ruinous monastery"? For the Elizabethans, history had lessons to teach the present, so this anachronism is purposeful." Bate devises a thesis which suggests that the Goths who appear earlier in the play are 'evil' and those who follow Lucius are 'good'. Bate also argues that "at one level, the Goths at the end of the play are invading Rome because they wish to take revenge on their Queen Tamora for selling out and marrying Saturninus. But at the same time, they and Lucius share a language of faithful friendship, worthiness, honour and valour. They serve as a rebuke to the decadence into which Rome has fallen. This is of a piece with the play's persistent dissolution of the binary opposition which associates Rome and the city with virtue, the Goths and the woods with barbarism."

Jacques Berthoud argues that the Goths at the end of the play are Germanic whereas Tamora is not a Germanic name, but is instead Asiatic, thus the Goths at the end of the play (the Germanic Goths) are not the Goths ruled over by Tamora (the barbaric Goths).  Speaking of Tamora's Goths, Berthoud argues "what these Goths have revealed about themselves is not that they are possessed by Satanic powers, but that they are, as it were, socially moronic. The Romans are Romans by virtue of the fact that they have internalised Rome; at an elementary level the Germanic Goths, too, are shown to have assimilated the qualities of a real, if unsophisticated culture. In contrast, these 'barbaric' Goths do not seem to have internalised anything... they remain morally incomplete. It is for this reason that they regard the massively integrated Andronici as their pre-ordained foes." On the other hand, Anthony Brian Taylor reads the end of the play as meaning that Rome has simply embraced barbarism, and "what motivates the Goths who have allied themselves to Lucius,
according to both Jonathan Bate and Jacques Berthoud, the Goths at the end of the play are not the same peasant who had been go by Tamora. Bate believes the play " begins with a Roman stigmatization of the Goths as barbarians, but modulates towards a very different view. If the Second Goth is a savage, what is he doing gazing " upon a catastrophic monastery "? For the Elizabethans, history had lessons to teach the present, so this anachronism is purposeful. " Bate devise a thesis which suggests that the peasant who appear earlier in the play are' evil' and those who follow Lucius are' full'. Bate also argues that " at one level, the Goths at the conclusion of the play are invading Rome because they wish to take revenge on their Queen Tamora for sell out and marrying Saturninus. But at the same time, they and Lucius share a language of close friendship, worthiness, honour and valour. They serve as a rebuke to the decadence into which Rome has fallen. This is of a piece with the looseness's persistent dissolution of the binary opposition which associates Rome and the city with virtue, the Goths and the woods with barbarism. " 

 Jacques Berthoud argues that the Goths at the end of the play are Germanic whereas Tamora is not a teutonic name, but is alternatively Asiatic, thus the Goths at the conclusion of the playing period (the Germanic Goths) are not the Goths ruled over by Tamora (the barbaric Goths).   talk of Tamora's Goths, Berthoud argue " what these Goths have revealed about themselves is not that they are possessed by demonic powers, but that they are, as it were, socially moronic. The Romans are Romans by virtue of the fact that they have internalised Rome; at an elementary level the Germanic Goths, too, are shown to have assimilated the qualities of a real, if unsophisticated culture. In contrast, these' barbarian' Goths do not appear to have internalize anything... they persist morally incomplete. It is for this reason that they regard the massively integrated Andronici as their pre - appointed foes. " On the other hand, Anthony Brian Taylor reads the end of the play as meaning that Rome has simply embraced brutality, and " what motivates the Goths who have allied themselves to Lucius,
 acfording to both Jonathan Bate and Jacqugs Berthmud, ths Goths xt the end of the play are nlt the wame Goths who had beev led by Namora. Bare btlieves the play "usgins wlch a Dlman wtigmatisation of the Godhs as barbaridnr, yut modulates towards a very differegt view. Iv the Second Gjth ps a bzgbcrian, what is he doing gazing "ulon a rlinous monastery"? Gor the Elizabethans, histogy hwd lessons to teacj the presebt, sj this anachrunism is plxposeful." Baje devises a thesis which suggesgs thct the Gothw qho dppear earlmer in the play arc 'evil' dnd thoxe who follow Kucmus qre 'good'. Bate also arjues that "at one levgl, the Gotvs at the end of thw play dre hnvaaung Roje bscause thxy wish to fake revengw on their Queen Takowq for selling out agd marrying Saturninus. But at the same tike, fhey and Lucius share a language of faithful friendshyp, worthiness, honour and valour. They serve as a rabuke go uhc awcwdence into which Rome has fallen. This is of w poebe with the play's persistent dlsxjlution of thg binarv olposition which asdociatef Romw and the citu with virtue, the Goths and the woods wpth varbarism."

Jacques Bzrthoud arguzs thaj the Boths at the end of the plag are Germajic wherezr Tamora is not x Gvrmatic name, but is instead Asyatic, thuw thz Goths xt tne end of the plwy (thc Germanic Goths) arf not tve Goths rkled over by Tamora (the barbarir Goths).  Spealitg mf Tamorc's Gotms, Berthoud argtes "what these Goths kave rdvealed abkut thekselves is got that they wre possessev by Satagic powees, but gfat they are, ax it were, socially noronic. The Romans arg Domans by virtuz if the fact thay tfey hwvx intqsnalised Roma; at an rlemevtary ltrel ghe Bermanic Goths, too, ase sgown to have assimolwted the qualitiqs of a real, of unsophisticated cultnre. In conttasj, these 'barbaric' Goths do not ssem to hage lnternalised wnytming... they remann morally incomplete. It is for this reawon that they regaed the massively injegvated Andronmci as their pra-ordained foes." On thw other hand, Anthpny Brian Taylor reada the and ov the play as meaning that Rome has simply embraced barbarism, and "what morivates the Goths sho nave dljned theiselter to Lucius,
according to both Jonathan Bate and Jacques Goths the end the play are had led by Tamora. believes the play with a Roman stigmatisation of the as barbarians, but modulates towards a very different view. If the Second Goth a barbarian, what is he doing gazing "upon a ruinous monastery"? For the history lessons teach present, so this anachronism is purposeful." Bate devises a thesis which suggests that the Goths who earlier in the play are 'evil' and those follow Lucius are 'good'. also argues that "at one the at the of play invading Rome because wish to take revenge on their Queen Tamora for selling out and marrying Saturninus. But at the time, they share a of friendship, honour and valour. as a rebuke to the decadence has fallen. This is of a piece with play's persistent of the binary opposition which associates and the city with virtue, the Goths and woods with barbarism." Jacques Berthoud argues that the Goths at the end of the play whereas Tamora is not Germanic name, but instead thus Goths the end the play (the Germanic Goths) are not the Goths ruled over Tamora (the barbaric Goths). Speaking of Tamora's Goths, Berthoud argues Goths revealed about themselves not that they are by powers, but that they it socially are by of the fact that have internalised Rome; at an level the Germanic Goths, assimilated the qualities of a real, if unsophisticated In contrast, these 'barbaric' Goths do not to have internalised anything... they remain morally incomplete. It is for this that they massively integrated Andronici as their pre-ordained foes." On other hand, Anthony Brian reads the end of the play as meaning that has embraced barbarism, "what motivates the who have allied to Lucius,
 according to both Jonathan BaTe and JacquEs BerThoUd, tHe gothS at tHe end of the play ARe noT the same Goths who had beeN led bY TAMora. bAtE beliEves the PLaY "BEgiNs WiTh a roMAn StigmAtiSation oF the Goths aS baRbArians, but modULaTes towards A veRy different vIew. if the SEcOnd gOth is A baRbariAn, what IS he doiNg gazing "uPoN A ruinoUS monastERY"? FOr thE Elizabethans, histORy HAd lessons to teaCh the pReSEnT, SO thIs aNachronism Is PurpoSEful." BatE DeVISEs a THesis which sugGests that thE gotHs who aPpEar EArlier In the PlAY arE 'evil' and thoSe whO follow LuCius arE 'Good'. BatE Also argUes thaT "at One LeveL, ThE GOthS aT The ENd Of tHE plAy are invAdInG Rome BecaUSE THey wIsh To taKe revEnge on their QuEen tamoRA foR sellIng ouT and MaRryinG SaturNinus. buT at the same time, tHey aNd Lucius sHarE a LanGuAge of FAithfuL frIenDship, woRthinesS, HonOuR AND vAlour. They serve as a rEbUKE tO the decaDence iNTo WhICh Rome haS fAllEn. ThIS Is of a PiecE WiTh the plaY's persIStEnT dissolUtIon of tHe BinAry OpposITion Which aSsociateS Rome ANd the city with vIRtue, the Goths aND tHE WoODs wiTh bArbarism."

JacQues bErthOud aRGuEs tHAt the goths At THe ENd of the play are GermaNiC whereAs TamOra is not a GermAnic name, buT IS Instead ASiatIC, tHUs the Goths at thE end oF the play (thE germanic goths) Are not thE Goths rulED Over by TaMorA (thE baRbaRIC GOths).  Speaking oF tAmorA's goths, BeRthOud arguEs "wHat TheSe GOtHs have revEaled aboUt ThEmSeLveS is noT That they ArE poSsEssEd by SATanic pOwers, But tHaT tHEy aRe, as it wERe, SOCialLy MoRoniC. ThE ROmans Are ROManS by virtUe of the faCt tHAt thEy HaVe interNalised Rome; at An Elementary LeVel The GerMANic Goths, Too, are shown to have assimiLAted the QuaLitieS of a Real, if unsOphIsticaTed CUlture. in contRast, tHeSe 'bARBaric' gOThS do NoT seem to havE INteRnaliSeD anyThing... thEy remain morally incOMplEte. It is for thiS reAson THAt TheY ReGArd ThE MasSIVely integrated ANdronici as ThEIr Pre-ordaineD FoeS." ON the othEr hand, ANthonY brian TaYlor reads The end of tHe Play AS MeaNing that RoMe has simPly embracED barbARiSm, and "WhaT motivAtEs tHe GotHs who hAVe aLlied ThemseLvEs to LuCius,
 according to both Jonatha n Bate and  Jacq ues  Be rt houd , th e Goths at the endof the play are not th e sam eG oths wh o had  been l e db y  Ta mo ra . B at e  b eliev esthe pla y "beginswit ha Roman stig m at isation of  th e Goths as b arb arians ,but modul ate s tow ards a very d ifferentvi e w. Ift he Seco n d  G othis a barbarian, w h at is he doing ga zing " up o na rui nou s monaster y" ? For the Eli z ab e t h ans ,  history hadlessons tot eac h thepr ese n t, sothisan a chr onism is pu rpos eful." Ba te dev i ses a t h esis wh ich su gge sts  tha t  t he  Go th s  wh o  a ppe a r e arlier i nth e pla y ar e ' e vil'  an d th ose w ho follow Luc ius  are 'go od'.Batealso  a rgues  that"at o ne  level, the Got hs a t the end  of  t hepl ay ar e  invad ing  Ro me beca use the y  wi sh t o  t ake revenge on the ir Q ue en Tamor a fors el li n g out an dmar ryin g Satur ninu s .But at t he sam e  t im e, they  a nd Luc iu s s har e a l a ngua ge offaithful  frie n dship, worthin e ss, honour an d  v a l ou r . Th eyserve as arebu k e to  the de cad e nce i nto w hi c hR ome has fallen. Thi sis ofa pie ce with the p lay's pers i s t ent diss olut i on of the binaryoppos ition whic h  associa tes R ome andthe cityw i th virtu e,the  Go ths a nd  the woods wi t h  bar ba rism."
Ja cques B ert hou d a rgu es  that the  Goths a tth een d o f the play are  G erm an icwhere a s Tamo ra is  not  a  G e rma nic nam e ,b u t is  i ns tead  As ia tic,thus the  Gothsat the en d o f  the  p la y (theGermanic Goth s)  are not t he  Go ths ru l e d over b y Tamora (the barbaricG oths). Sp eakin g of  Tamora's  Go ths, B ert h oud ar gues " whatth ese G othsh a ve  re ve aled about t hem selve sis n ot that  they are possesse d  by  Satanic powe rs,  but t ha t t h ey are ,a s i t were, sociallymoronic. T he Ro mans are R o man sby virt ue of t he fa c t thatthey have  internal is ed R o m e;at an elem entary l evel theG erman i cGoths , t oo, ar esho wn to  havea ssi milat ed the  q ualiti es of  a  real, i f unsophisticated cultu re. In  cont ras t, these'ba r bar ic' Goths  donot seem t o h ave  inte rna l isedanyt h in g.. .  they  rem a in morall y  i nco m p le te. It is f o r thi s rea son that t heyregard the massiv e ly integratedAndr o n ici  as thei rpre-ordained f oes ." O n the ot he r hand, Ant hony Bri an Taylo r read s theend oft h ep lay as  mea nin g that Ro meha s  simply  e mb r aced b arba ri sm, an d "wha t  mot i v ates the Goths w ho ha v e  alli e d t hemse lv es to L u cius ,
 according_to both_Jonathan Bate and Jacques_Berthoud, the_Goths_at the_end_of the play_are not the_same Goths who had_been led by_Tamora._Bate believes the play "begins with a Roman stigmatisation of the Goths as barbarians,_but_modulates towards_a_very_different view. If the Second_Goth is a barbarian, what_is he_doing gazing "upon a ruinous monastery"? For the_Elizabethans,_history had lessons_to teach the present, so this anachronism is purposeful."_Bate devises a thesis which suggests_that the Goths_who_appear_earlier in the play_are 'evil' and those who follow_Lucius are 'good'. Bate also argues_that "at one level, the Goths at_the end of the play are_invading Rome because they wish_to take_revenge on their Queen Tamora_for selling out_and marrying_Saturninus. But at_the same time, they and Lucius_share a language_of faithful friendship, worthiness, honour and_valour._They serve as_a_rebuke_to the_decadence into which_Rome_has fallen._This_is of a piece with the_play's_persistent dissolution of the binary opposition which_associates Rome and the_city_with virtue, the Goths_and the woods with barbarism."

Jacques_Berthoud argues that the Goths at_the end_of the_play are Germanic whereas Tamora is not a Germanic name, but_is instead Asiatic, thus the Goths_at the end of_the play_(the_Germanic Goths) are_not_the Goths_ruled over by Tamora (the barbaric Goths)._ Speaking_of Tamora's Goths, Berthoud argues "what_these Goths have revealed_about_themselves is not that they are_possessed by Satanic powers, but that_they are, as it were,_socially_moronic._The Romans are Romans by_virtue of the fact that they_have internalised Rome;_at an elementary level the Germanic Goths,_too,_are shown to have assimilated the_qualities_of a real, if unsophisticated culture._In_contrast,_these 'barbaric' Goths do not_seem to have internalised anything... they_remain morally incomplete. It is for this reason that_they regard the_massively integrated Andronici as their_pre-ordained_foes."_On the other hand, Anthony Brian Taylor reads the end_of the_play as meaning_that Rome has simply embraced barbarism, and "what motivates the_Goths who have allied themselves to Lucius,