CHiusTIAN UNITY ANDSECTAKIAN VIoLENcEReasonsfor Intolerant Legislation Fourth Century Rome

Ethan Spanier

Roman society witnessed a dramatic change in official religious policybetween the end of Constantine’s reign (337) and the end of Theodosius’reign (395). This period began with the state giving equal agency to those

who worshipped the traditional Roman gods as well as those who worshipped Christ.By the end of this period however, the state mandated that Christianity would beworshipped exclusively, and that anyone practicing either paganism or a hereticalform of Christianity would be subject to severe punishment. Between these twotemporal guideposts, scholars have investigated the erosion of pagan aristocraticlegal rights in the Theodosian Code to understand reasons behind religious intolerance in late Fourth Century Roman society. The traditional viewpoint perceivespagan and Christian aristocrats as separate political groups with distinct religiousidentities, both vying for the “ear” of the Emperor on religious policy.’ Revisionisthistorians on the other hand postulate that the Roman aristocracy forged commoncultural bonds that transcended religious boundaries resulting in cooperation for thecommon good of their class. This second group levels the charge of intolerance onChurch leaders who wished to add political power to their monopoly on religiousauthority.2 Both sides contribute to our understanding the discourse between paganand Christian groups in Rome. But because this dialogue is primarily understoodthrough the religious restrictions set in Roman law, most scholars have failed tounderstand the motivations behind setting legal precedence. Legislation was a response to localized social and political events that threatened the stability of society.It is useful, therefore, to investigate the occurrence of tumultuous events such asriots and widespread violence in the historical record that provoked a legal responsefrom the Roman State. The purpose of this paper is to chart the laws recorded in theTheodosian Code that established Imperial policy on paganism and demonstratethat the promulgation of such legislation coincides with historic events of civic unrest brought about by theological disputes.3 Such an investigation is complicatedby the fact that Roman law did not incrementally erode the religious rights of paganpractitioners, but rather records a fluctuation of Rome’s official position on intolerance. As a heuristic device, I have organized the Theodosian Code into three distinctphases of Imperial legislation: the reigns of Constantius (337-361), Valentinian I(363-375), and finally Gratian, Valentinian 11 and Theodosius (375-395). Each phasereflects a trend in Imperial policy that either enforced or relaxed laws on religious

128 Ex POST FACTO

Ethan .5anier

intolerance. After charting the chronology of these laws, I will examine the simultaneous events of sectarian violence to understand the local context surrounding theselaws. It is my belief that laws restricting pagan religious practice were a response totheological disputes that erupted into specific violent events that threatened the cohesion of Roman society. Roman law established precedence against religious pluralism for the sake of Christian unity under the Catholic banner.As the move towards intolerance began in earnest in the reign of Constantius,

the policies of his father Constantine should be examined on order to show thegenesis of change. In his work Pro Templis, Libanius states flatly that Constantine“made no changes in the forms of worship, but even with poverty in the temples,one could see all the rest of the ritual was fulfilled,”4 and claims that Constantine“did not proceed against (pagan) sacrifices.”5 Scholars have dismissed these twobrief asides on Constantine’s religious policies by Libanius as politically motivatedrhetoric.6 Yet Constantine’s additions to the Theodosian Code do not record anystrongly worded law against traditional pagan practices. His coercive legislationis directed against the “superstitio” of astrology and magic for divination purposes,or against Jews, not traditional pagan practices.8 Therefore the official legal position during Constantine’s reign can be described as mandating pluralism, a policythat continued into the early part of the next Emperor, Constantius.The trend of intolerant laws promulgated during the reign of Constantius, the

first phase of our heuristic model, went through a significant transformation. Book16, Title 10 (De Paganis, Sacrificiis, et Templis) of the Theodosian Code recordsfive laws affecting pagan practices. The early laws demonstrate continuity of Imperial religious policies with those set by his father. Constantius’ first law, 16.10.2conforms to the same vague wording as legislation against astrology passed duringhis father’s reign. These laws calls for “superstition” (superstitio) to cease and “madness and sacrifices” (sacrificomm.. .insania) to be abolished.9 The penalty for transgressing against this law is equally vague. “He shall suffer the infliction of a suitable punishment.”° A law passed in the next year, 16.10.3 mentions that while“superstitio” shall be completely eradicated the temples should remain undamageddue to a long established tradition of amusements for the Roman people)’ Revisionist school scholars employ these laws to demonstrate that pagan aristocracy inRome held some social influence and that relations between Christians and Paganswere somewhat convivial.’2 Traditionalists argue that these laws were merely legalistic sop for hard line Christians who wished to exact revenge on pagans for theinjustices of the “Great Persecutions” by Diocletian and Galerius)3Regardless of how these early laws are interpreted, it is clear that a decisive

break with the toothless policies of previous legislation was enacted fourteen yearslater with the law mentioned in l6.l0.4.’

It is Our pleasure that the temples shall be immediately closed in all placesand in all cities, and access to them forbidden to commit sin. It is also Ourwill that all men shall abstain from sacrifices. But ifperchance any man shouldperpetuate any such criminality, he shall be struck down by the avengingsword. We also decree that the property of a man thus executed shall be vindicated to the fisc. The governors of the Provinces shall be similarly punished if they should neglect to avenge such crimes. (Italics are my own)

This law, proclaimed in 356, has worked out many of the vague juridical elementsof Constantius’ early laws against “superstitio”. By stating that this law affects “all

SPRING 2003 V0LuNIE XII 129

CHRISTIAN UNITY AND SECTARIAN VIOLENCE

places and in all cities” Constantius promotes religious intolerance throughout thewhole of the Empire, not just in Rome. Furthermore legal clarity is achieved byadopting vivid Christian imagery. The purpose of this law is to forbid access totemples as an obstruction for pagans who go there to commit sin (licentiamdelinquendi perditis abnegari). This law also clarifies the penalty of pagan worshipby ascribing capital punishment with equally intense Christian language. The reference to the “avenging sword” (gladio ultore) is also used in Christian scriptures toexplain divine jurisprudence.’5 The Christian terminology of this law illustrates thefundamental shift in Imperial religious policy and set a theological precedent foranti-pagan legislation.The serious threat of sectarian violence surrounding the expulsion of Liberius in

the previous year may provide the context for understanding this adoption ofChristian legal verbiage. In 355, the Imperial court at Milan called an ecclesiastical council to force Western bishops to condemn Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria.’6The Athanasius controversy was a significant episode in the development of Christian ideology and both sides of the debate held deeply entrenched views.’7 Liberius,the bishop ofRome, refused to accede to Constantius’ demand to publicly condemnAthanasius and was consequently exiled to Ammianus records that Libenuswas phenomenally popular and his expulsion had the potential to provoke so great aconfrontation that Liberius was spirited him out of Rome in the middle of the night.’9The near contemporary letter Collectio Avellana provides additional proofof Liberius’popularity. According to the author, all the Christians of Rome swore that they wouldnot accept a new bishop while Liberius lived.20 Upon Liberius’ return to Rome in357, a “great commotion” rose against Felix, the Arian Bishop appointed to replaceLiberius and was driven from the city.2’Ammianus records this event in the same section as his recounting of violent

outbursts and civil unrest under the governship of Leontius, though he does notdirectly associate violence with the expulsion of Liberius. Ammianus himself isuncertain as to the motivations behind these violent riots, blaming mob violence onhot passion that finds any excuse, in this case a wine shortage.22 In the recounting ofthese violent events byAmmianus, it is of interest to note that the name of the riotringleader was Petms Valuomeres, a name with Christian associations.23 The riotquickly dispersed when Petrus was publicly restrained and flogged. Immediatelyafter the punishment of Petms, Ammianus records the events of the Liberius and thecouncil that split the Papacy. This compressed recording of events in 355 might notintentionally conflate the two, but at the very least it leaves the reader with a senseof the social instability Rome experienced during the schism.

It would be misleading to simply ascribe a causal relationship between anti-pagan legislation and outbursts of violence without first understanding the religiousatmosphere ofRome. Scholars seeking to understand the localized context surrounding the discourse between the Christians and the pagans have brought innovativesources to light. Michelle Salzman has done some remarkable work on the CodexCalendar of 354, a primary source that adds to our understanding of pagan worshippractices just before the harshest legislation of intolerance in 356. This calendar wascreated for a wealthy Christian aristocrat named Valentinius and the artwork depictstraditional pagan months and pagan practices, such as the burning of incense andthe veneration of images. According to Salzman, the artistic evidence suggests thatRome was still quite pluralistic and accepting of pagan practices. “By 354, the assimilation of pagan aristocratic traditions into a Christian framework was well under way—a reality that is amply reflected in the pages of the Codex Calendar.”24

130 Ex POST FACTO

Ethan Spaniei

Her analysis advances the theory that, as late as 354, pagan and Christian aristocracy were not locked in conflict, but attempted to work together for the continuedsocial and civic harmony of Rome.25If she is correct, the Calendar of 354 depicts one of the last years of peaceful co

existence between Christian and Pagan elements in Roman aristocratic society. Thenew legislation of 356 precipitated a trend towards anti-pagan legislation near theend of Constantius’ reign that would set the tone for future legislation. The adoptionof 16.10.4 and a similar law passed in that same year, 16.10.6, ascribing capitalpunishment for making pagan sacrifices,26 defines the first phase of official Imperial policy on intolerance to pagan practices. The desire for social unity by a majority of the Senators and the Emperor was the driving force behind the promulgationof tough, anti-pagan legislation mentioned in CT 16.10.4 and 16.10.6.27 Romanjurisprudence started down the path of religious intolerance as a reaction to fears ofsocial fragmentation and civil strife. The seeds of this schism between Arian andCatholic Christians sewn by Liberius’ exile would have long lasting, violent repercussions in the next phase of legislation seen in the Theodosian Code.Understanding the lack of legal precedence set in the eighteen-month reign of

Julian is needed before turning to the laws passed during the second phase of ourheuristic model. He ascended the throne after the death of Constantius in 361 andformulated new Imperial policy to resonate with his own belief system.28 As a childgroomed for the position of Emperor, Julian studied the most theurgic and ritualisticform of Neoplatonism in the school of Aedesius at Pergamum. This philosophyfirmly held the belief that the divus itemus was essentially unknowable and couldtake several forms.29 Early Christian writers roundly condemned him for revivingthe old style of persecution reminiscent of Diocletian. While his language aboutChristianity was violent, he did not translate that ferocity into official intolerance ofChristian belief.35 The only law that demonstrated any intolerance was an Imperialdecree mentioned by Ammianus and Ambrose that prohibited Christians from teaching the pagan classics.3’ The philosophical underpinnings of this decree had nothing to do with undermining the Christian faith. In sum, Julian did virtually nothingin Roman jurisprudence to reassert pagan worship practices in Rome, though he didadopt a strong polemical tone against Christianity personally.

It is difficult to know just how much of a legal foundation Valentinian borrowedfrom Julian. The Theodosian Code does not contain any laws promulgated duringJulian’s reign brief reign as they were deleted during the compilation process. Yet itis reasonable to assume that Valentinian, a hardheaded soldier from the provinces,made a practical assessment of the situation and decided to create legislation thataccurately reflected religious practice in Rome. Ammianus was considerably impressed by the way Valentinian treated both pagans and Christians:

In the last place, his reign was distinguished for religious tolerance. He tooka neutral position between opposing faiths, and never troubled anyone byordering him to adopt this or that mode of worship. He made no attempt tofasten his own beliefs on the necks of his subjects, but left the various cultsundisturbed as he found them.32

The analysis of Valentinian’s character reflects a perceived revival of toleration. Asearly as 364, Valentinian sent new legislation to C. Aurelius Symmachus,33 the Prefect of the City warning him that Christians should not be forced to guard pagantemples.34 This infers that pagan temples remained open and traditional pagan wor

SPRING 2003 VoLuME XII 131

CHRISTIAN UNITY AND SECTARIAN VIOLENCE

ship practices remained intact. Then in 371, Valentinian promulgated a law thatofficially loosened the formal restrictions on pagans, reflecting the attitude expressedby Ammianus:

I judge that divination (haruspicina) has no connection with cases of magic,and I do not consider this superstition (religio) or any other that was allowedby our elders to be a kind of crime. Of this opinion the laws given by Me inthe beginning ofMy reign are witnesses, in which free opportunity was grantedto everyone to cultivate that which he had conceived in his mind. We do notcondemn divination, but do forbid it to be practiced harmfully.35

This law establishes a change in official Imperial policy from the late policy ofConstantius and returns to the superstitious religious policies ofConstantine and theearly laws of his son.36 The suppression of witchcraft and magic had always beenconsidered the purview of the State as acts against individuals fell into the categoryof criminal intent and not religious toleration. Valentinian also officially adopted thepolicy of alternating the highest positions in the City between senatorial pagans andChristians.37This middle phase, signified by the loosening of restrictions against pagans in

Valentinian’s reign, should not be explained as a mere continuation of]ulian’s religious policies. An investigation ofthe sectarian violence that raged throughout Romeduring this time offers an alternate explanation to the origins of this tolerant legislation. The seeds of factional discord that were planted in 355 when Constantius expelled Liberius from Rome because of the Athanasius controversy began to bearfruit in 366. Two members of the Roman ecclesiastical power circle were simultaneously elevated to position of Bishop of Rome after the death of the reinstatedLiberius. This effectively split the Christian Church over the legitimacy of the Popefor the next decade.38 On the one hand Damasus, recommended by Liberius to succeed him, was the non-Arian Catholic choice to be the next Bishop of Rome. On theother hand Ursinus, who was ordained by Felix during Liberius’ exile, received thesupport of three of the seven bishops and was the first to be consecrated as Bishop ofRome.This schism between the Pope and anti-pope caused years of sporadic but bloody

violence. Both Ammianus and Jerome claimed that this was the most serious outbreak of Christian violence in Rome since the Great Persecutions.39 The outbreakofviolence in 367 was so destructive that Valentinian sent a rescript to Aginatus, thevicarius of Rome ordering him to clear Rome of all troublemakers:

Desiring to remove every reason for these discords, which, as your Prudencehas written, confuse the most hallowed City by the people of the Christiansbeing driven hither and thither, We command by this letter that no meetingmay be held within the twentieth milestone by those persons whom factiousdisunion delights, most dear and agreeable Aginatus. 40

This reveals the extent to which sectarian violence, brought about by the factions ofDamasus and Ursinus, had unbalanced social stability in the capital. The rescriptresulted in clearing the center of Rome of all Christian practice, in effect declaringmartial law in order to control the violence. Both the effects of this civic unrest andthe rescript created a religious vacuum in which pagans could worship as they pleasedin the new atmosphere of toleration. The effects were felt almost immediately and

132 Ex POST FACTO

lit/ian Spanier

some senators took full advantage of this opportunity by participating in publicdemonstrations of faith. As early as 368, the same year as the worst schismaticviolence, the pagan aristocrat Praetextatus restored the Porticus Deomm Consentiumand its sacrosancta simulacra on the Roman forum,4’ the last pagan religious monument dedicated by an official in the City of Rome.42

It is difficult to ascertain how long this turbulent atmosphere lasted in Rome. Weknow that as late as July 17, 374, Q. Clodius Hermogenianus Caesarius, the Prefectof Rome,43 performed the ritual of taurobolium, in which a bull is sacrificed toMagna Mater.”’ But after the death of the Emperor Valentinian in 377, the Catholicsect reasserted its authority. Damasus, became victor in the struggle between thetwo factions and spread his influence across the city. Prudentius gives an account ofthat year’s violent action against pagan cults throughout Rome by furius MaeciusGracchus, the Prefect of Rome.45 There is also archaeological evidence that suggests a return to organized Christian worship in Rome at that time. An inscriptionfrom a new church dated to 377 attests to a building program by Christians, suggesting enough civic cohesion to organize a building project of considerable scale.46Thus the death of Valentinian I in his native Pannonia opened the door for a dramatic shift in Imperial policy under the reign of Gratian.The death ofValens at Hadrianople in 378 left the sixteen year old Gratian as the

Senior Augustus and the five year old child Valentinian II as his partner. The paganshoped the teenage Emperor would continue the tolerant policies ofhis predecessor.After all, Gratian had been educated by Ausonius, a refined aristocrat from Gaulwho though nominally Christian, was a friend of Symmachus and shared in therespect of the time honored beliefs ofAncient Rome.47 But Gratian began to cultivate a close relationship with the Catholic Church almost immediately. Soon afterhis coronation, Damasus called a Synod to make an impassioned plea for Imperialassistance in suppressing heresy. The new Emperor Gratian drafted a rescript thatordered the arrest of Luciferians, an Arian sect with an established center of supportin the Roman suburbs.48 But this rescript also fundamentally altered the relationship between the Imperial throne and the Seat of Peter by placing the jurisdiction ofecclesiastical affairs in the hands of the Catholic Church.49 After passing severalmore laws against heretical movements, Gratian promulgated this anti-pagan legislation this law on December 21, 381.

If any madman or sacrilegious person, so to speak, should immerse himselfin forbidden sacrifices, by day or night, as a consulter of uncertain events,and if he should suppose that he employ, or should think that he should approach a shrine or a temple for the commission of such a crime, he shall knowthat he will be subjected to proscription, since We give warning by Our justprovision that God must be worshipped by chaste prayers and not profanedby dire incantations.55

Any hope that pagans held for a continuation of religious plurlism under Gratianwere dispelled. Most importantly, this law officially outlawed the practices paganaristocrats that had continued in the aftermath of Valentinian’s death. Gratian personally saw that this law was carried out to its fullest extent. All official funding forany pagan temple or priesthood was severed 51 and he ordered the removal of theAltar ofVictory from the Senate.52 Thus, Gratian formulated official Imperial policythat abandoned the tolerant legislation thereby returning to the strongly worded antipagan legislation promoted towards the end of Constantius’ reign.

SPRING 2003 VoLuMe XII 133

CHISTlAN UNITY AND SECTAKIAN VIOLENCE

The young Valentinian 11 upheld the policies of his half-brother after the death ofGratian. He refused the impassioned plea of Symmachus to restore the Altar ofVictory to the Senate.53 But it would be wrong to characterize the policy ofValentinianII as staunchly anti-pagan as his half brother’s for an atmosphere of cooperation didexist between pagans and Christian officials. In the spring of 384, the Emperor received reports that pagan temples in Italy were being plundered and orderedPraetextams, the then Praetorian Prefect of Italy to investigate these charges.54Symmachus was falsely accused of injuring Christians and was exonerated whenDamasus sent a letter in his defense.55 That well known pagans like Praetextatuswere elected Praetorian Prefect and that the Pope would come to the defense ofSymmachus indicates that as late as 385 pagans still held a modicum of social prestige.The Eastern Emperor Theodosius, who had left the religious policy of Rome

alone, was forced to come West to reinstall Valentinian II by putting down the usurperMagnus Maximus. During his short stay in Italy, Theodosius changed forever theway the Roman law related to pagans. In 391, Theodosius promulgated 16.10.10,which explicitly bans pagan sacrifice and prohibits bureaucrats from using theirelevated position to participate in pagan worship practices.

No person shall pollute himselfwith sacrificial animals; no person shall slaughter an innocent victim; no person shall approach the shrines, shall wanderthrough the temples, or revere the images formed by mortal labor, lest hebecome guilty by divine and human laws. Judges (judices) also shall be boundby the general rule that if any of them should be devoted to the profane ritesand should enter the temple for the purpose of worship anywhere, either on ajourney to a city, he shall immediately be compelled to pay fifteen pounds ofgold, and his office staff shall pay a like sum with similar haste, unless theyresist the judge and report him to the public attestation. Governors with therank of consular shall pay six pounds of gold...

This law utilizes the most damning language ever used against non-Christian sacrifices and takes a very clear and hard line against pagan worship. It also closes manyof the loopholes used by aristocrats who surreptitiously practiced their pagan beliefsunder the guise of performing an official duty. Furthermore, it binds fellow bureaucrats to the religious actions of officials, making everyone culpable for non-Christian practices. Thus the bureaucracy became legally and spiritually unified on matters of religious conduct through the enforcement of anti-pagan legislation.Ambrose is credited with the most dramatic change in Imperial policy towards

intolerance after Valentinian.56 Inexperienced and malleable, both Gratian andVatentinian II became indoctrinated by the gravitas of the Bishop of Milan. Theinfluence of Ambrose on Theodosius is another matter. Theodosius was a strongwilled, hardened soldier who possessed a great fear of the supernatural. The traditional interpretation of this influence depicts a struggle between an overbearing bishopand a superstitious Emperor.57 The victor in the confrontation between these twotitanic personas was Ambrose, who forced the Emperor to lay aside his Imperialregalia and perform penance in the cathedral of Milan. This period ofpenance had aprofound psychological effect on the Emperor and the heartfelt “conversion” process persuaded him to take a harder stance against paganism.The context of the penance that initiated this conversion of Theodosius was the

wide scale sectarian violence between different Arian Gothic troops and the Catholic population of Thessalonika the previous year. A riot broke out, ostensibly over

134 Ex Posr FACTO

Ltflan panier

the arrest of a famous charioteer. But social tensions between his Arian Gothic border troops, and Catholic Christian Greeks had been tense for some time. The garrison commander Butherichus was killed in the summer of 390 and Theodosius ordered a reprisal attack on the citizens of Thessalonika in November. The attackseems to have gotten out of hand and over 7000 racing fans were killed. Thesocial tension between Christian sects was still high and remained so. Similar Arianschismatic violence occurred two years earlier in Constantinople when a false rumor that Theodosius had been defeated in the West instigated widespread destruction.59If Ambrose was the primary agent for formulating Imperial policy, what social

and religious forces influenced him? To answer this, we must analyze the role violence played within the factionalism of the Christian community. During the strugglesof Damasus and Ursinus in the 360s, Rome witnessed some of the worst violencebetween rival Christian factions. JR. Curran devotes an entire chapter to the asceticmovement in the early 380s, showing the influence of Jerome on Roman aristocraticwomen, effectively splitting Rome into Christian sectarian regions along class lines.60HO. Maier lists several aberrant sects of Christianity that held considerable influence in the Fourth Century. By the 390s, Montanists, Manichaeans and Donatistsplayed an important role in the molding of religious dogma in Rome.6’ The violentoutbreak of these movements corresponds to the promulgation of the most coerciveand intolerant laws against both pagans and heretics.62 Ambrose advocated that theadoption of a single, unified version of Christianity, namely Catholic faith, was thebest vehicle to bring about the social stability sought by the Emperor and the Senate.The fragmentation of the Christian Church into divergent sects is one aspect of a

larger disintegration process affecting the Roman Empire in the late fourth centuiy.63 The Emperor relegated religious authority to specialists like Ambrose, whounderstood the increasing complexity of the Christian faith while also possessingthe gravitas to hold the Church together. Ambrose, in writing a letter to ValentinianIt, argued against the restoration of the Altar of Victory by reminding the Emperorof this need for specialization, effectively inserting himself in Imperial policy. “Ifadvice needs to be taken on military matters, one should look for the opinion of aman experienced infighting battles and support his judgement; when the question isone ofreligion, think ofGod.”60 Ambrose’s commitment to forcing a unified Catholicversion of faith on the Emperor is evident in the same letter: “The Christian Emperor has learned to honor the altar of Christ atone.”65 During the oration given atfuneral ofValentinian II, Ambrose heaps high praise upon the Emperor for his toughstand against paganism. He compares Valentinian to a saint “standing fast like Danielignoring the pleas of both pagans and Christian alike to restore the temples and thepagan priesthood.”66 The power Ambrose held on religious policy persuadedTheodosius to submit the Imperial title to the spiritual authority of Ambrose onChristmas Day 390 and within weeks began drafting intolerant legislation for Christian unity at the expense of pagan worship practices.

In the pursuit towards understanding the discourse between different groups,historians are tempted to ask questions that polarize society. Averil Cameron cautions us that, “One gets into problematic areas when the application of the veryterms “Christian” and “Pagan,” as though there was always firm and easily detectable boundaries between them instead of a murky overlapping area.”67 A process ofmatriculation most likely did occur but laws in Roman jurisprudence restrictingreligious practices are the barometers of the spiritual climate. But our knowledge ofa society from a strict legal perspective has severe limitations. Salzman reminds us

SPRING 2003 VoLuME XII c 135

CHRISTIAN UNITY AND SECTARIAN VIOLENCE

that the analysis of the Theodosian Code, like any study of law, can provide uniqueinsights into society by revealing how people were expected to act, but does not tellus how people actually comported themselves in their every day lives.8 The shiftin official anti-pagan policy was not the precipitated by a desire to stamp out paganism, as much as a response to civic unrest sparked by Christian sectarian violence.The ultimate goal of intolerant legislation was to create social harmony throughadopting a singular version of belief. The dominant Catholic power structure inplace by the mid-fourth century desired complete unification of all Christians towards what they believed was the only “correct” spiritual viewpoint. The Emperorwanted social stability within his borders, so energy and resources could be directedtowards invasions from non-Roman peoples. Rome coped with sectarian violenceby mandating an official policy of Catholic religious worship at the expense ofpagan religious rights, all in the name of Christian Unity.

136 Ex POST FACTO

NoTEs

1. See Andrew Alfoldi, A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire, Westport:Hyperion Press, Inc. (1952); Arnaldo Momigliano, The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, (Oxford, 1963); Tom B. Jones, In theTwilight of Antiquity, (Minneapolis, 1973). Brian Croke, Religious Conflict inFourth Century Rome: A Documentary Study, (Sydney, 1982); A.H. Armstrong,“The Way and the Ways: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in the Fourth Century A.D”, Vigiliae Christianae, 38 (1984) p. 1-17.

2. Peter Brown, “Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy” JRS 51 (1961):1-11. A general introduction to this period that reflects this “revisionist” view is DianaBowder, The Age of Constantine and Julian, London: Paul Elek Books Ltd. (197$).Michelle Salzman, On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms ofUrban Life in Late Antiquity, (Berkeley, 1990). Averil Cameron, Christianity and theRhetoric ofEmpire: The Development ofChristian Discourse, (Berkeley, 1991); Salzman,“Elite Realities and Mentalities: The Making ofa Westem Christian Aristocracy”, Arethusa33 (2000).

3. Laws against heresy and schismatic sects are outside the scope of this paper, but will betouched on briefly.

4. Libanius, Orations 30.6: Tqc KOTa vopouc Es OtponEiac ievqosv oO6i €v, á?b ñvV V TOIç EpOiç OEV1O. nOpflv IE OpaV GflOVO TàXXO flXrtpOU]EVo.

5. Or. 30.37: : ...oiji inh Taç Guoiac npo?eE... A long digression follows this brief reference in Libanius. See Bradbury, “Constantine and Anti-Pagan Legislation” p. 128.

6. Ibid. 127. Bradbury claims that Libanius was misrepresenting Constantine’s position inorder to sway Theodosius to adopt official policies that protected pagan places of worship.

7. The rather skeptical work of Eusebius (De Vita Constanitini) has been considered andrejected as unreliable where not corroborated by the Theodosian Code. There are rathertendentious references by Eusebius that Constantine banned blood sacrifices in the autumn of 324. 1 lowever, many scholars remain dubious about this ban, not only because ofa long-standing distrust of Eusebius (which I share) but also because it is commonly heldthat such a ban on sacrifice so early in the conversion process was too confrontationaland therefore politically unfeasible. see Scott Bradbuiy, “Constantine and Anti-PaganLegislation in the Fourth Century”, Classical Philology, 89.2 (1994), p. 120-139

8. There are several references to forbidding astrology and witchcraft that could be used to“curse” or “hex” another member of Roman society, but nothing to alter the officialstance on religious pluralism. Even C.T. 16.2.5, which is cited as intolerant legislation byBradbury, only maintains the state’s right to prohibit coercive worship practices.

9. CT 16.10.2 (341).10. Ibid.11. CT 16.10.3 (342).12. Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire ; Saltzman, “Elite Realities and Men

talities”13. H.A. Drake, “Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance”, Past and Present,

153, (1996), p. 34.14. The date of this law is debated. For a date of 356 see 0. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und

Papste (Stuttgart, 1919) p.41; André Piganiol, L’Empire chrétien (Paris, 1972) p. 88, fn 3and p.103, th 3; A. Chastagnol, La prefecture urbaine a Rome sous Ic Bas-Empire (Paris,1960) p. 148, lii 2. “l’ambiance genérale de l’année 356”. For a complete debate on thechronology of 16.10.4 see Bradbury, “Constantine and Anti-Pagan Legislation”, p.136.

15. Romans 13:4 “it is not for nothing that they (God’s agents) hold the power of the avengingsword, for they are God’s agents of punishment bringing retribution on the offender.”This literary illusion is common in Old Testament theology conceming God’s desire topunish the wicked.

SPRING 2003 VoLuME XII 137

16. The entire episode is recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus in Res Gestae, 15.7.6-1017. Ernest Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, Desclée de Brouwer (Paris, 1959): in sections “La

Crise Arienne Aprës 353”, and “Triomphe Dc L’Arianisme” describes these events inbrief detail.

18. Amm 15.7.819. Amm 15.7.10 Liberius aegre populi metu, qui eius smote flagrabat, cum magna difficultate

noctis medio potuit asportari.20. CoIl. Avell. 1.2 as cited by John Curran in, Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the

Fourth Century, (Oxford, 2000).p. 131.21. Ibid.22. Amm 15.7.3 secutis cum itidem plebs excita calore consuevit, vini causando inopiam,23. Amm. 15.7.424. Michelle Salzman,On Roman Time, p.196.25. Ibid. 223-23 1. Salzman isa strong proponent of the “Revisionist” school mentioned on

pg. 1.26. 16.10.6: “If any persons should be proved to devote their attentions to sacrifices or to

worship images, We command that they shall be subjected to capital punishment.” (356)27. It was not a political tool to regain favor with his ecclesiastical court. The Athanasius

controversy was too passionate a issue to persuade those bishops with whom the Emperor had fallen out of favor to accept Felix as the new bishop of Rome.

28. “Julian” in OCD 3rd ed. 199629. “Neoplatonism” in OCD 3rd ed.199630. All. Armstrong, “The Way and the Ways,” Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984) p. 7-8.31. Amm 21.1; Ambrose Epistula 17.38.32. Amm 30.9.5 Postremo hoc moderamine principatus inclamit quod inter religionum

diversitates medius stetit nec quemquam inquietavit neque, Ut hoc coleretur, imperavitaut illud: nec interdictis minacibus subiectornmcervicem ad id, quod ipse coluit, inclinabat,sed intemeratas reliquit has panes ut repperit.

33. Father of the famous Q. Aurelius Symmachus, author of the Relatio papers.34. CT 16.1.1 (365)35. CT 9.16.9 (371)36. It should be noted that these law codes do not represent a complete reversal against

Christian legislation. Several laws were promulgated that placed restrictive bans on nocturnal soothsaying, CT 9.16.7 in 364 and another curtailing public or private astrologyeither day or night, CT 9.16.8 in 370.

37. Andrew Alfoldi, A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire: The Clash between theSenate and Valentinian I, (Westport: Hypedon Press, Inc.) 1952, 76. The alternating ofposts between pagan and Christian might reflect the situation as it was in practice.

38. A. Lippold, “Ursinus and Damasus” Historia 14 (1965) p. 105-12839. Amm 27.3; Jerome Chron. a35840. ColI.AveI. 9.141. Amm 27.9. 1042. Herbert Bloch, “The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century”, Pa

ganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. Arnoldo Momigliano, (Oxford:Clarendon Press) 1963. 195.

43. Hagith Sivan, “Ammianus At Rome: Exile and Redemption?”, Historia 46.1(1997): 121.44. Curran, Pagan City and Christian Capital, 200-202.45. Prudentius, Contra Symmachum, 2.910-913. This violence was not brought about by

Imperial decree, but rather the zealous indignation of a few monks.46. Curran, Pagan City Christian Capital, p. 145.47. On the friendship between Symmachus and Ausonius, see Symmachus’, Epistulae esp.

19, 20.48. Harry Maier, “The Topography of Heresy and Dissent in Late-Fourth-Century Rome”

Historia 44.2 (1995) p.238.

138 , Ex POST FACTO

49. CoIl. Avell. 13.11-14. Gratian renounced the title of Pontifex Maximus that he hadaccepted earlier and did not mind being called pontifex by Ausonius afterwards as aterm of endearment.

50. CT 16.10.751. This law by Gratian is not extant, but the removal of state funding of pagan temples and

priesthood is referenced in CT 16.10.20 sect 1. It is difficult to know where Gratian’slegislation stops and Honorius’ start.

52. Symmachus, Relatio 3.253. Ibid. The discussion of the Altar ofVictory debate has been covered by scholars so com

prehensively that it shall only be mentioned in passing here.54. Symmachus, Relatio 21.555. Ibid.56. His arrival at the court in Milan in 374 conforms nicely to the chronology of most argu

ments that cite that Gratian left Ausonius’ school for Milan in the following year.57. This struggle was so famous that early-modem artists used the event as subject matter for

painting. Anthony Van Dyke created an oil painting in 1619 entitled, “ The EmperorTheodosius is forbidden by Saint Ambrose to enter Milan Cathedral” National Gallery,(NG5O).

58. Tom Jones, In the Twilight ofAntiquity, (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota) 1973 p.124.

59. Ibid 122.60. Curran, Pagan City, p. 269-280.61. Maier “The Topography of Heresy” p. 234: The list includes Valentinians, Marcionites,

Montanists, Sabellians and Novatianists. For schismatic influence, see pgs. 240-248.62. Out of twenty-four articles of legislation against various heretical sects passed between

Constantine and Theodosius, twenty were promulgated during the reigns of Gratian, andTheodosius. See CT 16.5.4- 16.5.24

63. Just as the Empire fractured into smaller, more manageable units, so the power of theEmperor that once encompassed temporal and religious authority had to be divested.

64. Ambrose, Epistula 17.7.65. Ep. 17.1066. Ambrose, Dc orbituValentiniani, 19.67. Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian

Discourse, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.68. Salzman, “The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in

Book 16 of the Theodosian Code” Historia, 42.3 (1993) 362.

SPRING 2003 VoLuME XII 139

AMID THE SAND AND THE FOGThe Development ofthe Sunset District ofSan Francisco, 1912-1940

Jacob Pemberton

Numerous writers over the past one hundred fifly years have written histories of San Francisco, with special emphasis on the great events that shapedthe city, such as the Gold Rush, the 1906 Earthquake and Fire, and the

1934 General Strike. Yet most of these writers have ignored a key aspect of SanFrancisco’s history, one less romantic, but no less important. That story is the growth,during the early decades of the twentieth centwy, of the outlying neighborhoods ofthe city, and specifically of the Sunset District. This growth was the culmination ofdecades of civic expansion, which finally was able to conquer the natural obstaclesto the city’s development. In the end, the city of San Francisco came to occupy theentire tip of San Francisco peninsula, not by accident, nor by sheer inevitability, butthrough the deliberate planning of the city government. The character of the Sunsetwas in turn determined by the specific course of growth taken by developers, and bythe actions of those who came to call the Sunset home. Thus, the story of the SunsetDistrict, far from being merely of passing interest, is in fact central to the story ofSan Francisco itself.’

PART I • HISTORIOGRAPHY

One constant of the historiography of San Francisco is the almost complete absenceof discussion regarding the western portion of the city, specifically the Sunset, Richmond, and Parkside Districts. At best, these districts receive a sentence here, aparagraph there, and almost always as an afterthought to discussions of the older,more established districts downtown. However, two strains of San Francisco historiography are intimately connected with the Sunset District. The first is the historyof the Municipal Railway (Muni), which in the 1910s and 1920s provided the firstmajor transit links between the Sunset and downtown through the building of theTwin Peaks and Sunset tunnels. More broadly, the history of Muni fits into thecategory of San Francisco’s expansion. The second strain is histories that discussthe ethnic, potitical, and social composition of San Francisco’s myriad neighborhoods. Though the Sunset is rarely at the center of these studies, this materiat provides an important insight into the overall character of the Sunset. Thus, whitehistorians do not generally discuss the Sunset District directly, enough has beenwritten on related issues to establish some basic historiographical trends.

140 Ex PosT FAcTo

Jacob Pemberton

The historiography of the Municipal Railway comes remarkably close to consensus. The most comprehensive history of Muni is Anthony Perles’s The People cRailway, which views the birth of Muni in 1912 as a logical outgrowth of the Progressive Era. In Perles’s telling, the new City Charter of 1900, which allowed forpublic ownership of utilities, was a reaction against “government corruption whichwas often largely the work of... transit companies.” Likewise, the rapid expansionof the Municipal Railway, in Perles’s view, was largely the result of the politicalsupport it received from the Progressive Mayor “Sunny Jim” Rolph.2 William Isseland Robert W. Cherny, authors of San Francisco, 1865-] 932, likewise give a largeshare of the credit for Muni’s birth and success to Mayor Rolph, but they also singleout the Carmen’s Union strike against the United Railroads (URR) as a powerfulimpetus towards the creation of a public railway. The URR, which controlled nearlyall of the streetcar lines in San Francisco, brutally suppressed the strike at the cost ofdozens of lives. This, combined with widespread graft, was crucial to turning public opinion against the company, and thus led to the voter approval of the creation ofMuni in 1909. But the creation of Muni alone was not enough to spur the greatresidential growth of the Sunset and other western neighborhoods, as Vincent D.Ring demonstrates in his extensive thesis “Tunnels and Residential Growth in SanFrancisco, 1910-1930.” Streetcar tunnels were necessary to speed the commutedowntown to the point that it was competitive with ferries from the East Bay.4Another commonality of the historians who cover Muni is the recognition that,

at least in regard to the western neighborhoods, Muni policy was decidedly proactive. That is, it was the policy of city engineer M.M. O’Shaughnessy to use Muni“as a means of ‘developing the city’s growth in well-ordered and predetermineddirections.”5 Perles’s book offers copious photographic evidence of this policy,showing that in much of the western portion of the city, Muni preceded housingdevelopments, sometimes by many years.6 Frederick M. Wirt likewise notes thispattern of “commercial developments ... radiating along the main lines of travelestablished by the early electric trolleys.” Wirt, though, sees the process not simplyas one ofMuni leading growth, but as a cycle whereby “ease of transportation generated new housing, and housing realtors generated pressures to provide new accessroutes .“‘However, the era of Muni expansion did not last long. Begun in 1912, Mimi

built its last new streetcar line, the N-Judah in the Sunset, in 1928. For Perles, theend of the period of expansion is directly related to the introduction of the new cityCharter of 1932, which removed Mimi from O’Shaughnessy’s direction and placedit under the control of an appointed commission. This, combined with Rolph’selection as governor in 1930 and O’Shaughnessy’s death in 1934, deprived Muni ofenergetic leadership. The new Charter also specified that Muni, as a public utility,could not be run at a loss, which changed the operating mentality from service-oriented to profit-oriented. As such, service was cut back, especially in outlyingareas of the Sunset and Richmond districts, thus undermining the philosophy ofover-serving outlying areas to promote growth.8The character of the Sunset District as a distinct neighborhood is a topic covered

by several historians. At one end of the spectrum, John McGloin refers to the Sunset as “one of the finest residential districts in the city,” while at the opposite end,Oscar Lewis refers derisively to the Sunset as “long rows of almost identical cottages.”9 Both, however, fail to mention the people who inhabit the district. Issel &Chemy, by contrast, note that the Sunset by 1940 was a middle-class, ethnicallyheterogeneous neighborhood, dominated physically by “several huge Spanish mis

SPRING 2003 VoLuME Xli 141

AMID THE SAND AND THE FOG

sion-style Catholic parish churches.” Politically, the Sunset—roughly equivalent toAssembly District 27 from 1912-31—tended to vote conservatively, in line with theupper-class districts of the city. Wirt, likewise, notes the “[hJeavily varied ethnicmix” of the Sunset, while pointing to the Sunset as a place where assimilated, upwardly-mobile families—especially Irish and Italians—moved, drawn “by affluence and availability of better housing.”° Brain J. Godfrey, however, without denying the importance of ethnicity or class, argues that “the sheer physical landscapecreated the basis for distinct neighborhood identities.” Though he does not explicitly discuss the Sunset in this framework, it is easy to see how it could fit—with itsposition between the Ocean to the west, the Park to the north, and Twin Peaks to theeast, and its mix of sand underfoot and fog in the air, the Sunset is naturally set-offfrom other neighborhoods (the necessity of the Twin Peaks and Sunset tunnels serving as further evidence).Through an evaluation of the historical literature on these two topics—the Mu

nicipal Railway and the character of the neighborhood—it becomes clear that, inaddition to little having been written about the Sunset, those authors who have covered the topic have differed little in interpretation and emphasis. Neither Wirt’s ideaof a Muni/realtor housing cycle nor Godfrey’s conception of geographically definedneighborhoods differs sufficiently from the consensus to be considered dissent. Whilethis may tend to indicate that the history of the Sunset is relatively straightforwardand uncontroversial, it seems more likely that the lack of variety among the interpretations stems from a lack of interest and, therefore, a paucity of original researchon the topic.

PART II • BOUNDARIES AND TOPOGRAPHY

In order to discuss the Sunset District, is it first necessary to define which specificarea is meant by this name. As mentioned above, the boundaries of the Sunset arerather neatly demarcated on at least two sides—to the west lies the Pacific Ocean,which offers an impressive frontier as well as a spectacular views (including thecolorful sunsets which give the district its name), and to the north is Golden GatePark, man-made but no less definitive in its border. The southern boundary is commonly accepted to lie at Sloat Boulevard, though this is somewhat arbitrary. Theeastern border, however, is hard to define—certainly, in no place does the Sunsetextend east of Twin Peaks or adjacent hills, but at the same time, it does not necessarily reach those hills, either. To determine the eastern boundary it is necessary toconsider the lay of the streets in the Sunset. Between Lincoln Way along the Park,and Sloat Boulevard on the southern border, are fifteen streets running east-west,arranged alphabetically from north to south, starting with Irving and continuing toWawona. Likewise, there are forty-seven avenues running north-south, numberedSecond through Forty-Eighth, between Arguello Boulevard (formerly First Avenue)and the Great Highway. (A tree-lined thoroughfare, Sunset Boulevard, runs north-south between Thirty-Sixth and Thirty-Seventh avenues.) These streets and avenues create a massive grid, first surveyed in 1868, which, as much as the naturalfeatures, is a defining characteristic of the Sunset District. Thus, the eastern boundary can be said to exist at the easternmost point on each street where the grid ends,anywhere from Nineteenth Avenue on Sloat to Arguello on Irving Street. The imprecision of this boundary makes comparisons of sources, especially regarding population figures, very difficult, as each one has its own definition of the district boundaries.’2

142 Ex POST FACTO

Jacob Pemberton

When discussing the natural setting of the Sunset, one feature is constant innearly all accounts during the l930s and earlier—sand. In point of fact, the Sunsetwas, until the construction of a sea wall and the paving of the district, simply aseveral miles deep extension of Ocean Beach onto the peninsula. The dunes of theSunset, moreover, were formidable obstacles to development, as they reached depthsof as much as seventy-five feet in places, while winds carried the sand even to thepeaks ofGolden Gate Heights, six hundred feet above sea level.’3 So great were thedunes that in the mid-i 920s, a Hollywood movie production filmed a desert scene inthe middle of the Sunset, at Thirty-Sixth Avenue and Ortega Street.’4 Accounts oflife in the Sunset during the early decades of the century, meanwhile, make frequentreference to the sand as an all-encompassing fact of life. Mary Hawkins, for instance, in recalling going to the Outer Sunset in 1925 to meet Father Richard Ryan,pastor of the newly-created Holy Name of Jesus Parish, notes that “[w]hen we arrived, we found [Father Ryan] sweeping sand from the front door. ... when we wereleaving we found that the sand had all blown back, only more of it.” Likewise, asJohn J. Hills wrote to the Sunset Beacon, circa 1932 “one could walk on sand all theway [from Twenty-First Avenue] to the Great Highway. It required some zigzagging, but it could be done then all the way without stepping on asphalt.”15However, sand (and fog, another ever-present natural feature of the Sunset) was

never more than a nuisance—the real impediment to the development of the SunsetDistrict was the hills. Though San Francisco is often thought of as a city of hills, intruth the commercial and industrial core of the city is built on the relatively levelground along the city’s eastern shoreline. The Sunset, meanwhile, is almost completely cut off from this core by a large mass of hills centered around Twin Peaks.’6These hills extend northward as far as Parnassus Street (the name for Judah east ofSixth Avenue), creating a narrow gap between them and Golden Gate Park throughwhich to reach the Haight-Ashbuiy District, and eventually downtown. Only threeSunset streets pass through this gap—Lincoln Way, which becomes Frederick Streeteast of Stanyan, Irving, which transforms into Carl Street east of Arguello, andParnassus—none ofwhich offer a direct route downtown, as all three dead-end justa few blocks east at Buena Vista Ridge.

PART III • GROWTH Of A DISTRICT

One of the primary concerns of San Francisco’s civic leadership during the earlydecades of the of the Twentieth Century was maintaining San Francisco’s place asthe major city on the West Coast of the United States, a position that seemed to berapidly slipping away. For most, this meant increasing the rate of population growth,which lagged behind other California cities, such as Los Angeles and Oakland. Inthe first half of the Twentieth Century, for instance, San Francisco achieved a growthrate of one hundred twenty-six percent, a rate that was comparable to the growth ofthe United States as a whole, and especially to eastern cities of similar size, such asBoston or St. Louis. However, this rate did not keep pace with the rest of the state ofCalifornia. Los Angeles, for instance, grew from 102,000 people in 1900 (less thana third of San Francisco’s 342,782) to 1,238,048 in 1930 (nearly twice San Francisco’s634,394). Especially disturbing to San Francisco’s boosters were the results of theCensus of 1910, which demonstrated that San Francisco was growing at one of theslowest rates in the Bay Area. While San Francisco grew nearly twenty-two percent, Oakland achieved a phenomenal one hundred twenty-four percent growth injust a single decade, which prompted some Oakland leaders to think of their city as

SPRING 2003 VoLuMe XII 143

AMID THE SAND AND THE FOG

a potential rival as the central city in the Bay Area.’7Aware of this demographic change, a movement for a Greater San Francisco

flourished in the years after the 1906 Earthquake, eventually placing a measure onthe November 1912 ballot which proposed to unify the Bay Area into a single city,on the model of New York City with its five boroughs. For a variety of reasons,including the resentment of residents ofOakland and other towns which would havebeen swallowed by San Francisco, this measure failed. This lead San Franciscans tolook internally for room to expand, and to create a Planning Commission to carryout this task. The Sunset and other outlying neighborhoods—such as the OuterMission, Ocean View, and Bayshore—offered the only conceivable outlet for suchgrowth.”Despite the physical impediments to development, the Sunset District did see

some growth in the period from the 1890s through World War 1. According to a1980 article in Pacific magazine, “as late as 1894 there were only twenty housesbetween Stanyan Street and the beach.” But in that same year came a major impetusto the growth of the district, the California Midwinter Fair, which was held in GoldenGate Park close to the Ninth Avenue entrance. The remains of that fair were destined to become several of the Park’s better-known attractions, including the M.H.de Young Memorial Museum. In 1898, the University ofCalifornia moved its medicalschool to a new campus on Parnassus Street, which led a few more people to moveto the small section of the Sunset between the Park and the hills, called the InnerSunset. Eventually by World War 1, much of this section of the district had beenbuilt up, from Arguello to about Twelfth Avenue, and from the Park up to KirkhamStreet. At about the same time, the Parkside Realty Company was developing theland around Taraval Street and Twenty-First Avenue. The little public transportation which served the district was designed to serve these two centers of population,and was provided entirely by private companies, including the Park and Ocean Railroad, which ran a steam train along Lincoln Way (after the 1906 Earthquake, theline was electrified). A third community, called Carville, existed by the beach, in acluster of abandoned cable cars which had been turned into houses. But this bohemian community, despite being an interesting footnote to the history of the city,seemed an unlikely model for the remainder of the district to follow.’9Given the topography, however, the Sunset was unlikely to grow into a major

district of the city without some form of intervention by outside forces, especially interms of improving transportation. Because of this, the Municipal Railway did, inmany ways, become the driving force behind the growth of the Sunset District. Asa 1933 report from the Mayor’s office notes, “[a] main policy of the MunicipalRailway has been the stimulation of district development.” To this end, by 1933,thirty-two of the almost eighty-four miles of track operated by Muni served theoutlying districts of the city, as did most of the nearly eighteen miles of bus routes.These routes were not simply for show, either. The N-Judah line, the main artery ofthe northern Sunset District, in 1931 carried fully ten percent of all of the passengerson Muni’s twelve streetcar and four motor coach (bus) routes. Assuming equalridership each day of the week (which was not in fact the case) and that each ridermade a round-trip, this works out to more than eleven thousand riders on the N lineeach day. The L-Taraval streetcar, using the same standard, carried an average ofabout nine thousand passengers per day. This adds up to a combined total of aroundtwenty thousand passengers a day, at a time when the Sunset had a population ofapproximately thirty-five thousand people. Though naturally a sizeable percentageof these passengers lived outside the district, this still gives an impression of the

144 Ex POST FACTO

Jacob Femberton

amount to which Sunset residents relied on Muni for their transportation needs.2°The private Market Street Railway (MSRy)—successor to the United Raifroads—

could not have possibly carried as many daily passengers as Muni to and from theSunset, because Muni had two distinct advantages when it came to serving the Sunset, namely the Twin Peaks Tunnel and the Sunset Tunnel. These two tunnels represented the crowning achievements of Muni’s pro-growth policy, and the culmination of years of planning, starting with the 1912 plan by the engineer Bion Arnoldfor Muni development. Arnold saw the necessity of bringing the area west of TwinPeaks (including the Sunset) within thirty minutes traveling time of downtown.Because of rapid transit across the Bay in the form of ferries, in the 1910s downtown San Francisco was actually more accessible to parts of the East Bay than theSunset District was. In order to avoid losing population to the suburbs, Arnoldcalled for the construction of a number of tunnels to connect the low-lying downtown area with residential areas beyond the hills.2’The importance of speedy transportation downtown to potential residents should

not be discounted, because realtors took it very seriously. For instance, a sign nearthe half-completed Twin Peaks Tunnel in 1915 advertised “17 Minutes to KearnySt.” The real estate agents Baldwin & Howell likewise boasted in a brochure thattheir property along Forty-Eighth Avenue between Moraga and Ortega—almost asremote from downtown as possible—was a mere “25 minutes to center ofCity.” Tomake this claim plausible they included an illustration showing a streetcar line running along Forty-Eighth Avenue, a line that was proposed but never built.22Over the next sixteen years, three tunnels were completed, one along Stockton

Street to North Beach, a second from Market Street under Twin Peaks and into thesouthwestern portion of the city, and a third under Buena Vista Ridge from DuboceStreet to Carl in the Haight-Ashbuiy and then on to the Sunset. All three of thesetunnels were part ofAmold’s original plan, but their construction was far from preordained. Vincent Ring does an excellent job in covering the innumerable hurdlesthat the city crossed in order to complete the Twin Peaks and Sunset Tunnels (theStockton Tunnel was rushed to completion due to the needs of the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition). One of the great difficulties faced by the city was figuring outhow to pay the great cost of these tunnels. Eventually, officials decided to raise thefunds through assessment taxes on property near the mouths of each tunnel—anidea resisted for a time by many of the larger landowners. Upon completion of thetunnel, officials had to make another key decision, this time whether Muni, theUnited Railroads, or both would use the tunnel. The administration ofMayor Rolphfought to maintain complete civic control, and eventually this position triumphed,although the URR responded by refusing Muni use of its tracks on Market Street,the main downtown thoroughfare, forcing the city to construct parallel rails thatfamously crowded Market with four sets of tracks.23The building of these tunnels, however, was not the work of Muni officials and

city planners alone. Many private organizations and speculators pushed for thetunnels. The San Francisco Tunnel League envisioned a fantastic growth of thewest part of the city to a population of four hundred thousand people. (In fact, by1950, the population of the Sunset and West of Twin Peaks combined was onlyabout one hundred forty thousand.) The building of the Sunset Tunnel was especially contentious, with at least four different plans debated back and forth untilconstruction began in 1926 (with completion in 1928). The Sunset Transportationand Development Association (SIDA) pushed for the construction of this tunnel asearly as 1921, when it endorsed the Duboce-Carl tunnel route eventually adopted,

SPRING 2003 VoLuME XII c 145

AMID THE SAND AND THE FOG

as well as the assessment district necessary to fund it. The STDA was influentialenough to receive attention from City Engineer M.M. O’Shaughnessy and the Boardof Supervisors, of whom the former and ten members of the latter addressed a meeting on the evening of August 8, 1923. Part of this influence was surely due to thefact that the STDA, according to its own records, had “perhaps the largest membership roll of any similar association” in the city, a roll which included several prominent citizens. Among those members was the STDA’s original treasurer FrankDoelger, who along with his brother Henry would eventually be responsible forconstructing a large rectangular swath of the central Sunset from Twenty-Seventh toThirty-Ninth Avenues and from Kirkham to Quintara Streets.24The era of Muni expansion in support of the outlying districts came to a rather

abrupt end with the Great Depression and the resulting drop in ridership. AlthoughMayor Rossi’s 1933 report on civic achievements still noted the role of Muni in“district development,” the emphasis was now on fiscal responsibility. To this end,the report notes that Muni showed an overall profit of more than $700,000 from1912 to 1933, when income other than operating revenue is taken into account. Butit fails to mention that during the period from 1919-1933, Muni showed a operatingrevenue loss every single year, totaling nearly $5 million for that period. This, ofcourse, was not the result of poor fiscal planning, but rather of the policy of puttingservice and expansion ahead of profit. To this end, Muni maintained a fare of fivecents, far lower than the national average fare. Even though the switch to fiscalresponsibility meant only minor cutbacks in service, this went against the previousideology of deliberately over-serving districts to promote growth. For instance, the1931 report by A.G. Mott, chief engineer of the state Railroad Commission, recommended a cutback of the L-Taraval line west of Thirty-Third Avenue, an extensionthat had been constructed into the dunes just eight years earlier.25

PART iv HOUSING

To understand the way in which the district developed, it is necessary to considerthe two-story row houses that typify the vast majority of its blocks. This type ofhousing is the result of three main factors: small lot sizes, automobiles, and landspeculation. In order to promote greater density, lot sizes in the Sunset (as in muchof the city) are extremely small, typically measuring twenty-five feet wide and onehundred twenty feet deep along the Avenues, for a total of three thousand squarefeet (fully one thousand square feet smaller than Federal Housing Administrationstandards as of 1944). Such a lot size significantly lessens the possibilities for abuilder, making multi-story attached row houses or small apartment buildings theonly feasible alternatives to deal with the extreme narrowness of the lots. The rapidexpansion in automobile ownership—from 95 per 1000 people in 1920 to 231 in1930—likewise reduced the design options, by necessitating a structure with a garage. The automobile also opened up the possibility of development in portions ofthe district not accessible by public transit. Finally, the method of development inthe Sunset consisted of speculators purchasing one or more entire blocks at a time.In an attempt to quickly develop and resell the land, homes had to be inexpensive,which ruled out apartment buildings, and which necessitated simple and repetitivearchitecture. The result of these three factors was the typical Sunset design of atwo-story house with the ground floor devoted mostly or entirely to a garage.26The case of the Doelger Brothers is indicative of the development of the district

as a whole, as they were only the most prominent of many large and small-scale

146 Ex PosT FAcTo

Jacoo remVerton

developers.27 Henry Doelger started as a speculator, buying entire blocks with theintention of reselling them as quickly as possible. The coming of the Depression,however, made such large-scale sales impossible, and so the Doelger Brothers wereforced to turn to development instead, selling their property one lot at a time (thehouses started at $5000). Fortunately for them, they turned out to have a talent forproducing affordable, and relatively attractive, housing at a rapid pace—at somepoints, they were completing two houses a day. This talent for cutting corners inconstruction earned Henry Doelger the nickname “One-Nail Doelger.” Accountsvary, however, as to how these shortcuts affected the homes—according to some,they led in the long-term to costly repairs, but others claim that the houses weresolidly built in spite of any shortcuts. There is much less difference of opinionregarding the design of the homes—their sameness led to a variety of witty, andderisive, nicknames such as “Doelger City” or “The White Cliffs of Doelger” (thelatter makes more sense if one views the district from a ship at sea). Only HenryDodger himself seemed to think the houses were less than cookie-cutter, pridinghimself on building homes that (at least on the exterior) were not identical to oneanother.26That the Sunset, under these conditions, developed as a middle-class neighbor

hood should not be surprising. The 1939 Real Property Survey conducted by theWork Projects Administration (WPA) cautioned that the Sunset, like other newerneighborhoods, was simply another new subdivision populated by middle-classhomeowners, destined to be abandoned to a future of blight by those same ownerswhen they moved on to a newer subdivision elsewhere. In fact, this neighborhooddecay never occurred, perhaps because San Francisco soon became completely developed, leaving no room for new neighborhoods, or perhaps the WPA did not givethe Sunset homeowners proper credit for their attachment to the district.29Either way, those who lived in the Sunset in 1939 tended to live in single-family

homes—the Sunset, which accounted for only 4.5 percent of total housing units inthe city, contained 15.2 percent of row houses and 8.4 percent of detached houses.City-wide, single-family homes were owner-occupied three-fourths of the time, andthus a similar percentage of Sunset homes probably were as well. Owner-occupiedhomes in the Sunset had a median value of $5,889, comparable to other middle-class neighborhoods such as West of Twin Peaks or the Richmond, and above thecitywide average of $5,288, but nowhere near that of the upper-class Marina-PacificHeights ($12,729). In part, this stems from the fact that Sunset homes, being themost recently constructed of all districts, were almost all in good condition—onlythe Outer Richmond had a higher percentage of structures classified as good. Givenall of these conditions, as well as the Depression, only middle-class families (orwealthier) could afford to live in the Sunset.3°These factors which determined the physical character of the district meant that

San Francisco’s zoning law, enacted in 1921, had relatively little influence on thebuilding of the district. The Sunset, like old neighborhoods downtown, was originally zoned Second Residential from Lincoln to Taraval, making it open to all typesof housing (south of Taraval it was zoned First Residential, allowing only single-family homes). But only single-family row houses developed. Likewise, attemptsto use zoning to plan commercial strips along Judah, Noriega, and Taraval Streets,as well as Forty-Eighth Avenue, had largely been a failure. Of 1177 lots zonedcommercial, only 195 (fifteen percent) were actually used that way, with another332 being housing of one sort or another (which was allowed under Commercialzoning), while 650 lots remained empty. The heart of the Sunset District thus suf

SPRING 2003 VoLuMe XII 147

AMID THE SAND AND THE FOG

fered from a severe lack of businesses, though not due to any negligence on the partof the Planning Commission.31This led, in 1944, to a successful attempt, led by neighborhood improvements

clubs and property owners, to change the zoning from Judah to Taraval streets primarily to First Residential (with a few exceptions). The memorandum on the subject by the City Planning Department notes that some multi-family structures “aredefinitely out of harmony with a single-family home neighborhood.” More ominously, Supervisor Chester MacPhee warned against “an infection” of “rental structures and certain other types of property ... [which would] destroy the pleasant,home-like quality of the neighborhood.” Enough of the Sunset was still vacant lots—including many entire blocks west of Sunset Boulevard—that this was a conceivable, if not particularly realistic, problem.32

PART V PEOPLE

The population of the Sunset District more than tripled from 1920-1940, increasingfrom 15,000 to 48,000, according to a 1954 report by the Department of City Planning. What is especially remarkable is the 37 percent increase between 1930 and1940 from 35,000 to 48,000, at a time when the population of the city as a wholewas stagnant. Then, from 1940 to 1950, when the city as a whole experienced agrowth rate of22 percent, the Sunset population increased by 73 percent, to $3,000.The Sunset alone thus accounted for one quarter of the entire growth of the citypopulation during the 1940s. Much of this increase, naturally, was due to new housing, more than 70 percent ofwhich was built in outlying districts such as the Sunset.After 1950, however, all but the most inaccessible of the city’s land had been utilized, and the city’s population peaked at 775,357 before beginning a three-decadedecline.33What makes this particular 1954 City Planning report so valuable is that it di

vides the city into eleven “residential communities” which far more accurately reflect the neighborhoods in the city than do the Census Bureau tracts (which, infairness, were not designed for this purpose). In the 1940 Census, for example, thearea of the Sunset is divided among eight tracts (0-1, 0-2, 0-3, 0-4, P-I, P-2, P-3,and Q-1), but only four of these (0-2, P-i, P-2, and Q-J) lie entirely within thedistrict. Thus, one must either count all eight tracts, arbitrarily including areas whichare not considered part of the Sunset, or only use four tracts, arbitrarily excludingareas (especially in the older, more established Inner Sunset) which are consideredpart of the district. The City Planning report solves this dilemma, and is thus morevaluable for charting the change in the total Sunset population over time than theCensus itself. However, the report is also far less detailed than the Census, thuspreventing detailed analysis.34The great growth of the Sunset District was not, however, open to all people, due

in part to the actions of social conservatives within the district. Beginning in 1923,the Sunset Transportation and Development Association began efforts to dictatepatterns of behavior, as well as to determine who would live in the Sunset. In 1923and 1924, this took the form ofmotions against dumping debris in empty lots and infavor of planting trees along the sidewalks. More seriously, however, the STDAinvolved itself in preventing the building of homes that it deemed to be “nuisances”due to their unsightly appearance. To this end, the STDA empowered a committee“to take whatever action they think in their judgment is necessary to protect theresidents of the district against these nuisances.”35

14$ Ex PosT FACTO

Jacob Pemberton

In 1925, the STDA turned its efforts towards a campaign to enforce racial uniformity in the district. In July of that year, an African-American couple, Jeff and LauraWoodard, attempted to purchase a home at 1623 Twelfth Avenue. The STDA, fearing a “colored invasion” initiated a plan to turn the property over to a holding company, thereby “restricting the occupancy of the property exclusively to those of thecaucasian [sic] race.” In August 1925, the STDA began a campaign to have ownerssign covenant agreements forbidding the sale of property to non-whites. Accordingto the group’s records, these agreements were “well-received by property owners inmost every instance.” Through these covenants, the STDA intended to make theSunset “an all white district for a period of at least fifty years,” thus “keeping thedistrict safe for the children.” It also successfully petitioned the San Francisco Examiner to stop carrying advertising which invited non-whites to view homes forsale. Though racial covenants were hardly unique to the Sunset—they were in forcethrough most of the city’s western neighborhoods until after World War Two—theirpromulgation demonstrates an adherence to the status quo that typifies the socialclimate of the Sunset from the mid-1920s till the end ofWorld War Two.36The efforts of the STDA to enforce racial uniformity were largely successful,

though certainly economics—few African-Americans could afford to live in a middle-class neighborhood—played a large role as well. According to the 1940 Census, outof a total population of 634,536, the city had 31,835 residents classified as “Nonwhite” (5 percent), with 4,846 (0.76 percent) of those being African-Americans.The eight tracts which lay partially or entirely within the boundaries of the Sunset,meanwhile, had a total population of 63,794 people. In comparison to the city as awhole, only 282 people (0.44 percent) were classified as “Nonwhite,” and a mere 59(0.09 percent) of these were counted as “Negro.” When only the four tracts whichlay completely within the Sunset are considered, the numbers are even more stark.0f31,932 people, 58 (0.18 percent) were “Nonwhite,” of which 13 (0.04 percent)were “Negro.” In Census tract P-2, bordered by Moraga, Nineteenth, Taraval, andSunset, which was home to 8,171 people, only a single African-American lived, aman in his late forties.37

A sizable minority of the Sunset’s population consisted of foreign-born whites.This group accounted for 9,952 residents (15.6 percent) in the eight tracts of theSunset broadly considered. In the city as a whole, 130,271 people were counted asforeign-born white, mostly from Italy, Germany, Ireland, England/Wales, EnglishCanada, Russia (USSR), and Sweden, in descending order. Within the Sunset, however, Germans were the largest group (1480 people, 14.9 percent of Sunset foreign-born whites), with Irish (1070, 10.8 percent) second, and English/Welsh (1056, 10.6percent) third. However, if the numbers for Scotland and Northern Ireland are addedto those of England/Wales, one arrives at a total of 1673 for the entire United Kingdom, a 16.8 percent of the Sunset total.38This total for the United Kingdom was far more than its 10.4 percent citywide.

Germans, Irish, Canadians, and Swedes likewise accounted for higher percentageswithin the Sunset than citywide. Italians, meanwhile, who with 24,036 foreign-born residents (t8.5 percent) accounted for the largest single group citywide, madeup just 6.2 percent of the Sunset total. Similarly, Russians accounted for only 4.5percent of Sunset foreign-born whites, compared to 5.7 percent citywide, and Greeks1.6 percent compared to 2.7 percent. Thus, there was a clear pattern with regards tothe distribution of foreign-born whites in the Sunset—Western European groups,especially those from English speaking countries, were over-represented as compared with those from Southern or Eastern Europe. This likely is reflective of the

SPRING 2003 VoLuME XII 149

AMID THE SAND AND THE FOG

ability ofWestern European groups to more easily assimilate themselves culturallyand economically into a middle-class American neighborhood. Thus, thoughFrederick Wirt sees the Sunset and other western neighborhoods as a area for upwardly-mobile Irish and Italians, it is clear that, at least during the 1930s, the conditions in the Sunset favored the former group over the latter.39Despite its reputation as a family neighborhood, the 1940 Census reveals that the

Sunset was home to only 12,960 people age 19 or younger, 20.3 percent of thedistrict population, which was actually slightly lower than the city as a whole, inwhich residents 19 or younger composed 20.9 percent of the total population. Thishelps to explain why the district was without ajunior or senior high school until thecompletion of Lincoln High School in 1940. Until then, the district was served onlyby six elementary schools, three ofwhich enrolled students up to eighth grade. Theeffort to build Lincoln dragged on for many years. The site was first purchased in1924, but it was not until the voters approved a $2,800,000 school bond in 1940 thatthe School District could move forward with its construction. This is a sharp contrastto the plans of the STDA, which called in 1926 for the immediate constructionofajunior high school, followed by the eventual construction of an additional threejunior highs and one senior high school. But the district’s needs simply did notmatch the demands of the STDA.4°

CONCLUSION

The civic government of San Francisco favored a policy of growth in the earlydecades of the Twentieth Century, in order to maintain San Francisco’s standing asthe premier city on the West Coast. To this end, the city used the Municipal Railwayto promote growth in the Sunset and other outlying districts. But several factors,including the Great Depression, limited the ability of the city to control the mannerof this growth, as shown by the shortcomings in the city’s zoning laws. Growth,however, continued apace, led by developers such as the Doelger Brothers ratherthan government. Local groups, including the Sunset Transportation and Development Association, also made their mark on the development of the neighborhood,both through petitioning the city government and exercising direct influence controlwithin their neighborhood. Along the way, the Sunset acquired its own character,becoming a distinct neighborhood, rather than simply a means towards the end ofcivic growth. The net result was that in little more than fifty years, the vast dunes ofwestern San Francisco were erased, replaced by rows of houses, homes to manysuccessive generations of San Franciscans.

150 Ex PosT FAcTo

NoTEs

1. This paper would not have been possible without the gracious help of many people, including Woody LaBounty at the Western Neighborhoods Project, Lorri Ungaretti ofGoldenGate University, Ken Garcia from the San Francisco Chronicle, Bunny Gillespie, thestaff at the San Francisco Main Branch Library, especially those in the San FranciscoHistory Room, the staff at the California Historical Society, San Francisco, and the staffsat St. Anne of the Sunset and Holy Name of Jesus Churches.

2. Anthony Perles, The People=s Railway: The History of the Municipal Railway of SanFrancisco, Interurbans Special 69 (Glendale, California: Interurban Press, 19$ 1), 13,31.

3. William Issel and Robert W. Chemy, San Francisco, 1865-1932: Politics, Power, andUrban Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 173-174.

4. Vincent D. Ring, “Tunnels and Residential Growth in San Francisco, 1910-1930” (Master’sthesis, University of San Francisco, 1971), North Baker Research Library (NBRL), California Historical Society (CHS), San Francisco, call no. 18039.

5. Mel Scott, The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective, 2nd ed. (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1985), 167.

6. Perles, see for example photos on 66-67, 72, 74-77.7. Frederick M. Wirt, Power in the City: Decision Making in San Francisco (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1974), 25-26.8. Perles, 101-103.9. John Bernard McGloin, San Francisco: The Story ofa City (San Rafael, California: Presidio

Press, 1978), 179; Oscar Lewis, San Francisco: Mission to Metropolis, 2nd ed. (SanDiego: Howell-North Books, 1980), 228.

10. Issel & Cherny, 79, 191; Wirt, 32-35.11. Brian J. Godfrey, Neighborhoods in Transition: The Making of San Francisco=s Ethnic

and Nonconformist Communities, University of California Publications in Geography,vol. 27 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 63.

12. “Short History of the Sunset District,” 1950, San Francisco History Room (SFHR), SanFrancisco Main Branch Library (SFMBL), folder “San Francisco Districts: Sunset!Parkside,” 1; Ring, 42.

13. Gilliam, 33-34.14. “Movies Used District for Desert Scene: Sandy Section of City is Fast Disappearing as

Building Increases,” San Francisco News, 1938, NBRL, CHS, San Francisco, “Biographies and Obituaries, vol. 9,” 59.

15. Mary Hawkins, quoted in “Celebrating Seventy Five Years of Building a Catholic ParishCommunity honoring His Holy Name,” 6 October 2001, Holy Name of Jesus Parish, SanFrancisco; John J. Kills, letter to the Sunset Beacon (San Francisco), San Francisco,January 1998, Sunset Branch Library, folder “Profile of Sunset District: Past,” 19.

16. A.G. Mott, Report of Survey on Municipal Railway of San Francisco (San Francisco:Railroad Commission of the State of California, 1931), SFHR, SFMBL, 7-6.

17. San Francisco Department of City Planning, The Population of San Francisco: A HalfCentury of Change, A Presentation and Analysis of Facts, Trends and Changing Relationships in San Francisco and the Bay Area Between 1900 and 1950 (San Francisco:San Francisco Department ofCity Planning, 1954), Government Documents Desk (GDD),SFMBL, call no. 312.8 Sa52p, 9; Mott, 9, 15; Ring, 33-34, 37-38.

18. Scott, 133-148; Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 169-170.

19. Pauline Scholten, “Neighborhoods: The Sunset,” Pacific magazine, August 1980, SFHR,SFMBL, folder “San Francisco Districts: SunsetlParkside,” 37-38; “Short History of theSunset,” 1-3; Brechin, 183-184; Issel & Chemy, 79; “Ocean Boulevard Lots,” advertising pamphlet by Baldwin & Howell, l9—(?), NBRL, CHS, San Francisco, call no. 8303.

20. MayorAngelo J. Rossi, “Achievements Under the Present Administration of the City andCounty of San Francisco” (San Francisco: 1933), J. Paul Leonard Library (JPLL), San

SPRtNG 2003 VoLuME XII 151

Francisco State University (SFSU), Government Publications Department (GPD), 5; Mott,112; The Population of San Francisco, 26 (figure 18).

21. Ring, 62-63.22. Perles, 66; “Ocean Boulevard Lots.”23. Ring, 90-91, 105-107.24. Ring, 93; Sunset Transportation and Development Association, minutes ofmeetings 1921-

1930, NBRL, CHS, San Francisco, call no. MS 3056, Folder 1, 3, 8-9, 11, Folder TI, 3;information on the Doelger Bros. provided by Lorri Ungaretti.

25. Mott, 104, 164-165, 169-170; Rossi, 5; M.M. O’Shaughnessy, Report on Rapid TransitPlans for the City of San Francisco With Special Consideration to a Subway Under Market Street (San Francisco: Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, 1931),GDD, SFMBL, call no. 388.4 R2994, 19; Perles, 75; John McKane and Anthony Perles,Inside Muni: The Properties and Operations of the Municipal Railway of San Francisco,Interurbans Special 79 (Glendale, California: Interurban Press, 1982), 250.

26. Mott, 16; U.S. Work Projects Administration, San Francisco’s Housing: 1939 Real Property Survey, vol.3, a Digest of the Real Property Survey (May 1941), JPLL, SFSU, GPD,11-12; City Planning Department, “Memorandum Report: Rezoning the Sunset District,”Master Plan Report No. 3, (San Francisco, City Planning Department, 20 April 1944),GDD, SFMBL, call no. 711.4097 SaS2me, 5.

27. In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that the author currently resides in ahome built by the Dodger Brothers.

28. Sunset Branch Library, folder “Profile of Sunset District: Past,” 33; Andrew Curtin, “HenryDoelger, The City’s Premier Home Builder, Dies,” San Francisco Examiner, 25 July1978, 24; Ken Garcia, “Visionary’s ‘ticky-tacky’ landmarks: S.F. seeks to honor littlehomes’ designer,” San Francisco Chronicle, 15 October 2002; additional informationprovided by Lorri Ungaretti and Bunny Gillespie.

29. San Francisco’s Housing, 11-12.30. Ibid., 18, 21, 24, 26.31. “Memorandum Report: Rezoning the Sunset,” 1-4, also maps32. Gardner A. Dailey, President of City Planning Commission (San Francisco), letter to

Board of Supervisors, 21 April 1944, in “Memorandum Report: Rezoning the Sunset;”Chester R. MacPhee, memorandum, in “Memorandum Report: Rezoning the Sunset;”City Planning Commission, Building Zone Ordinance and Zone Maps in Force March 1,1935 (San Francisco: 1935), GDD, SFMBL, call no. 352.5 Sa522, see maps.

33. The Population of San Francisco, 9, 12, 26 (figure 18); Census Bureau, Population andHousing: Statistics for Census Tracts, San Francisco, Calif. (Washington, D.C.: UnitedStates Government Printing Office, 1941), JPLL, SFSU, GPD, 4; Lewis, 256; Godfrey,3; McGloin, 370-371.

34. The Population of San Francisco, 26 (figure 18); Census Bureau, map “San Francisco byCensus Tracts,” 1.

35. Minutes of Sunset Transportation and Development Association meetings, Folder II, 2,7, 13-14.

36. Minutes of Sunset Transportation and Development Association meetings, Folder II, 30,33, 37-39, 42; Godfrey, 211.

37. Census Bureau, 4-5, 18-20.38. Ibid., 21, 39-41.39. Census Bureau, 21, 39-41; Wirt, 33.40. Census Bureau, 5, 18-20; Bill Simons, “Parkside Prepares to Dedicate High School,”

San Francisco Chronicle, 6 August 1940,26; San Francisco Municipal Record (San Francisco: Municipal Publishing Company, 1932), SFHR, SFMBL, call no. 917.9461 Sa522,26-27.

§ For convenience, primary and secondary sources have been separated. The primarysources have been further subdivided by institution, in order to facilitate ease of access.Wherever possible, a call number has been provided. Descriptive terms such as folder oralbum have been added where necessary to clarif’ the type of source. When severalworks from a collection have been consulted, only the collection itself is listed.

152 Ex PosT FACTO