Here are views diverse enough, but each has its advocate or advocates.  According to the earlier European writers the Vedic poets are fountains of primitive thought, streams unsullied by any tributaries, and in reading them one quaffs a fresh draught, the gush of unsophisticated herdsmen, in whose religion there is to be seen a childlike belief in natural phenomena as divine forces, over which forces stands the Heaven-god as the highest power.  So in 1869 Pfleiderer speaks of the “primeval childlike naive prayer” of Rig Veda vi. 51. 5 ("Father sky, mother earth,” etc.);[15] while Pictet, in his work Les Origines Indo-Europeennes, maintains that the Aryans had a primitive monotheism, although it was vague and rudimentary; for he regards both Iranian dualism and Hindu polytheism as being developments of one earlier monism (claiming that Iranian dualism is really monotheistic).  Pictet’s argument is that the human mind must have advanced from the simple to the complex!  Even Roth believes in an originally “supreme deity” of the Aryans.[16] Opposed to this, the ‘naive’ school of such older scholars as Roth, Mueller,[17] and Grassmann, who see in the Rig Veda an ingenuous expression of ‘primitive’ ideas, stand the theories of Bergaigne, who interprets everything allegorically; and of Pischel and Geldner, realists, whose general opinions may thus be formulated:  The poets of the Rig Veda are not childlike and naive; they represent a comparatively late period of culture, a society not only civilized, but even sophisticated; a mode of thought philosophical and sceptical a religion not only ceremonious but absolutely stereotyped.  In regard to the Aryanhood of the hymns, the stand taken by these latter critics, who renounce even Bergaigne’s slight hold on mythology, is that the Rig Veda is thoroughly Indic.  It is to be explained by the light of the formal Hindu ritualism, and even by epic worldliness, its fresh factors being lewd gods, harlots, and race-horses.  Bloomfield, who does not go so far as this, claims that the ‘Vedic’ age really is a Brahmanic age; that Vedic religion is saturated with Brahmanic ideas and Brahmanic formalism, so that the Rig Veda ought to be looked upon as made for the ritual, not the ritual regarded as ancillary to the Rig Veda[18].  This scholar maintains that there is scarcely any chronological distinction between the hymns of the Rig Veda and the Br[=a]hmana, both forms having probably existed together “from earliest times”; and that not a single Vedic hymn “was ever composed without reference to ritual application”; nay, all the hymns were “liturgical from the very start"[19].  This is a plain advance even on Bergaigne’s opinion, who finally regarded all the family-books of the Rig Veda as composed to subserve the soma-cult.[20]