So after Umberto Eco's recent death I read "The Name of the Rose", having only seen the movie before, and I realized that William of Baskerville has ideas that seem very modern compared to my idea of political philosophy and theology in the late Middle Ages. On the other hand Eco mentions in his apostille that most people get it wrong when they think some ideas are anachronistic (and miss the ones which actually are). My question concerns mostly the following ideas that William expresses:

• During the debate with the Pope's envoy, William evokes (without outright asserting it) the idea that the common people should be the "first cause" of the law. While he acknowledges that of course "children, fools, criminals and women" should be excluded, he seems to imply that the ideal form of government would be a democracy. While I know democracy (of a sort) had existed in the Antique world, and that many city-states inside the Empire were adopting a republican (but far from democratic) government, was this a position that was realistic in this time period?

• Later during the same debate, he says that heretics should be warned by the Church that they stray from the flock, but only condemned (by the secular state) if they pose an actual threat to society, by killing or attacking people who do not share their heresy. Obviously people who might be accused of heresy would have loved this idea, but is this really something you could say to the Pope's envoy in 14th century Europe if you wanted to stay alive? Considering the huge death toll that wars of religion had during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and the treatment of Martin Luther by Charles V at the diet of Worms two centuries later, I'm a bit surprised. Did Catholicism actually grow less tolerant of non-violent heresy between the 14th and 16th century?

• While looking at the relics of the abbey, he makes a casual joke about the fact that they're most likely all fakes. Sure, he does it while only Adso can hear, but is this a fact most educated people would have been aware of? Did the monks and priests really believe they had holy relics, or did they all keep the charade up and stopped themselves from pointing out that the proverbial emperor was naked?

• At the very end of the story, Adso asks William how his conception of God as both omnipotent (obviously this is typical doctrine) and completely free and unconstrained in his choices is different from saying that God does not exist. He cautiously answers "How could a scholar continue to spread his knowledge if they answered [that they are equivalent]?", implying that he does not believe God exists. Were there atheists in this time period, especially among Franciscan monks? I'm referring myself to the excellent blog post series by Ada Palmer on skepticism, and particularly to a comment in which she explains why William of Ockham (on which William of Baskerville is largely based) was most likely not an atheist.

(apologies for my quotes not being exact, being French I read the French translation)