In Yeatsian distress the Harvard community gazes anxiously at the widening gyre of its dramatic activities. With at least a dozen groups already formed and new ones blossoming each month, there is some ground for this mild hysteria. Opinions differ as to the nature of the problem--some say that acting talent is spread too thinly, other that there is not enough capital at hand--but the groups agree that the root of the trouble is dissipation of effort. Many feel that this dispersion can only be prevented by legislation.

The H.D.C., or Aesthetic, approach to college drama emphasizes the need for competence and suggests that all those who wish to perform in H.D.C. productions should first go through a training period. This amounts to an attempt to legislate a return to the H.D.C.'s accredited actors and the comparative amateurs made clear, the snob appeal might well be strong, leading to the development of casts and out-casts.

On the other hand, the H.D.C. plan might backfire. Especially prodigious freshmen might be disinclined to submit to its rather arbitrary program. Yet, according to the Dean's ground rules, they could not legally participate in House productions. Smoldering discontent among the freshmen would be matched by the rebellious attitude of upper-classmen who would rather take parts in House productions than bow to the demands of the H.D.C. Inevitably, there would be one of two results: either the H.D.C. would dissolve completely or the rules would be dropped.

The H.D.C., however, would not collapse if bolstered by another proposal for college drama, the Schwalb, or Economic Salvation plan. Feeling that the basic problems of college drama are material, Schwalb proposes that more costumes, bigger sets, and larger audiences are the real needs of Harvard drama. If one accepts this philosophy of dramatic art, one is of course led to the conclusion that efficiency is all that is needed. Hence, a strong central bureaucracy is indispensable to provide capital for heavy investments in costumes and sets, to arrange performance dates, and to withold financial support from inferior productions. Of course, this would involve the surrender of a certain amount of freedom by each group. But undoubtedly some sort of case could be made for the essential function of professional extravaganzas in fostering a liberal education.

The Schwalb plan marks the realization that art can only be furthered by legislation. It is this enlightened idea that puts the Schwalbians and the H.D.C. in the same camp, despite the emphasis of the one on economics and the other on aesthetics. Perhaps the virtues of both plans might be attained by combining them into one great interlocking directorate. This new institution, the Harvard Dramatic Organ, could prevent recalcitrant individualists from forming new "out-caste" groups, simply by scheduling some spectacle, say Aida, at the same time as the out-caste performance of Oedipus, which would not have the benefit of sets. With the new emphasis on harmony and unity, all kinds of wonders could be worked. The Cambridge community must look with favor upon the combined efforts of Schwalb and the H.D.C. As Yeats himself says hopefully, "And what rough beast its hour come round at last slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"