There are two long sentences here, I quoted from different books.
If you paint the same face, and set a winged rose or a rose of gold somewhere about her, one's thoughts are of her immortal sisters, Piety and Jealousy, and of her mother, Ancestral Beauty, and of her high kinsmen, the Holy Orders, whose swords make a continual music before her face.
The part of this sentence that confused me is "are of her immortal sisters". What makes me confused in this parts of the sentence is the verb "to be" which is used before "of". So, I'm actually asking if we can remove "are" and replace it just before the "the Holy Orders" as I wrote below:
"If you paint the same face, and set a winged rose or a rose of gold somewhere about her, one's thoughts of her immortal sisters, Piety and Jealousy, and of her mother, Ancestral Beauty, and of her high kinsmen, are the Holy Orders, whose swords make a continual music before her face.
Even if I'm wrong, I think this sentence says that when a painter paints a woman's portrait with a rose or golden rose, it reminds the viewer of some religious thoughts because of the allegoric function of the rose.
The title of this book echoes that of Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science, and this immodest act is homage to an important work that gave impetus to the movement of Critical Realism to which my work contributes.
and here I got confused about "that of Roy Bhaskar". To be clear, I feel like there is something missing between "that" and "of". So, what I should understand is "The title of this book echoes that (title of book) of Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science"? Or can we simply get rid of "that" from the sentence, if we can't, why?