I beg to differ good sir. Julian's reign is probably the best documented reign since Augustus.
"On February 4th, 362 AD Julian promulgated an edict to guarantee freedom of religion. This edict proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, and that the Roman Empire had to return to its original religious eclecticism, according to which the Roman state did not impose any religion on its provinces."
Hero of Canton
It just interfered with Christianity because Julian was an anti-Christian pagan. Or does interfering with Christians teaching (the classics, I believe) not count because the idea that Julian was a model of tolerance is so much cooler than the idea that he was a fanatic?
"
On leaving Antioch he appointed Alexander of Heliopolis as governor, a violent and cruel man whom the Antiochene
Libanius, a friend of the emperor, admits on first thought was a "dishonourable" appointment. Julian himself described the man as "undeserving" of the position, but appropriate "for the avaricious and rebellious people of Antioch".
[57]
- ^ See Letter 622 by Libanius: "That Alexander was appointed to the government at first, I confess, gave me some concern, as the principal persons among us were dissatisfied. I thought it dishonourable, injurious, and unbecoming a prince; and that repeated fines would rather weaken than improve the city...." and the translator's note upon it: "This is the Alexander of whom Ammianus says (23.2), "When Julian was going to leave Antioch, he made one Alexander of Heliopolis, governor of Syria, a turbulent and severe man, saying that 'undeserving as he was, such a ruler suited the avaricious and contumellious Antiochians'." As the letter makes clear, Julian handed the city over to be looted by a man he himself regarded as unworthy, and the Christian inhabitants, who had dared to oppose his attempt to restore paganism, to be forced to attend and applaud pagan ceremonies at sword-point; and be 'urged' to cheer more loudly." "
As well. Some tolerance.