The mirror introduces the dualism of illusion and reality. The psychological phenomenon of seeing one’s own reflected image apart from the self is an idea that plays out in folklore and allegory as perhaps the unearthly projection of innermost desires, a glimpse into the soul, or a manifestation of the true ‘I’. Consider this imperial 18th-century “peepshow” mirror cabinet, which was possibly commissioned in 1752, the very type of unusual plaything which the Qianlong Emperor was particularly fond of. We can imagine that when the Qianlong Emperor first approached this Western-technology inspired optical device, he would have encountered a portrait of his double – a looking-glass Emperor conjured through the use of reflections, light and shadow.

The greatest number of imperial portraits were commissioned by the Qianlong Emperor during the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), and one possible explanation for his fascination with seeing his own realistic depictions was that he was “repeatedly challenging the boundary between illusion and reality.” (Kristina Kleutghen, ‘One or Two, Repictured’, Archives of Asian Art, vol. 62, 2012, pp. 25-46). In our brief imagining of the Emperor as he sees his own image within the cabinet, it calls to mind the Lacanian “mirror stage” which describes a formative moment of our conscious development when we first become aware of ourselves in relation to the inner and outer worlds.

As the Emperor gazes upon his reflection through the looking glass, he may notice a discreet eyehole to the right of his other self. If he were to peer inside, he would discover his own image – a portrait within a portrait of himself. The peephole vignette reveals the Qianlong Emperor in the garb of a Song dynasty scholar and pictured amidst ancient objects of contemplation.

The image refers to a theatrical design set based on One or Two? – a series of five imperial portraits of the Qianlong Emperor (figs 1 and 2). The portraits are informal but elaborate, depicting the Qianlong Emperor in slightly different scenes, each featuring him as the subject with a portrait of himself within the setting. The five portraits from the series are held in the Palace Museum in Beijing, and the image from optical mirror cabinet resembles them. The name “One or Two?” comes from inscriptions by the hand of the Emperor which accompany the works within the series; the sixteen-character poems vary for each of the portraits, however they all open with the titular question: “Is it one or two?”

We may ask ourselves what the Qianlong Emperor meant by “it” – that is, beyond the most obvious explanation: the self-referential nature of the dual portraits. One interpretation is that his question is a challenge, to understand the nature of the internal and external self which flutters within the liminal space between dream and reality.

The Qianlong Emperor was known to be a fan of mixing influences from the notional East and West, and the historical strand linked to this rare cabinet shows the duality of these worlds. The Emperor reigned over a period of great prosperity, fostering the development of science, art and culture to their height. European missions to the Qianlong Emperor would bring tributes of previously unseen exotic objects, including optical, musical or mechanical instruments. The invention of the so-called “peepshow box” has been credited to the Italian cryptographer Leon Battista Alberti in the 15th-century, and the novelty device reached its popularity in Europe during the 17th century. Through an enclosed cabinet, painted two-dimensional images may be viewed in a way that simulates three-dimensional reality by enhancing the viewer’s sense of the depth. The illusion is created through lenses, mirrors and layering of flat painted panels. Having been presented with such a wondrous device, the Qianlong Emperor perhaps desired to possess his own version with adapted design elements and themes executed by artisans of the imperial court.

Few peepshow cabinets of the t.mes have survived, and an example of this calibre and quality is a rarity. This work reflects the changing taste of the court which welcomed the intersection of design elements from diverse origins. The cabinet is made of agarwood (chenxiangmu) and features ornately carved dragons with a western mercury mirror set. Because agarwood is so precious, artisans tend to use the material sparingly, often joined with some other type of wood. A whole cabinet made from this rare wood is a rare find indeed. Only one other optical toy piece like this one appears to have been recorded. A closely related agarwood mirror cabinet with two peepshow slits shows a Western cityscape and a marit.mes scene respectively (see below). This rare item was likely restricted to a small circle in the imperial court.

The mystery of this cabinet might reveal an intention far deeper than a novelty of mirrors. We can imagine the unsettling effect experienced by Qianlong Emperor as he saw his image reflected back as spectacle – a subversive relativity of illusion and reality. As the gaze moves back across the mirror and to the left, there is another eyehole which opens to a sublime landscape or a manifestation of a dream. Perhaps it is a vision that projects the Qianlong Emperor forward in anticipation of a paradise beyond.

^{(This essay was written with thanks to David Ho for his contribution and ideas to the piece.)}

After passing through long corridors and grand halls populated by Western-style playthings, the Emperor would have been welcomed foremost by his own reflection when he arrived at this mirror cabinet. Peeping through the two eye slits at the top, he would have encountered his most poignant and enigmatic double-portrait One or Two on the right side, accompanied by a glimpse of paradise on the left. Whimsically designed with overlapping layers of cutout panels, these scenes provide an illusion of three-dimensionality. This powerfully carved cabinet not only showcases the influence of Western theories of optics and perspective at the t.mes but also elicits the view’s literal reflection of the self and self-identity.

A Qing court record which dates from the 1st day in the 11th month of the 17th year (6th December 1752) states that ‘the Emperor ordered a pair of Xiyangjin (Western raree show mirrors) to be made for Shuifadian (Water Palaces)’ and tin plates in the storage would have to be utilised. The present raree show cabinet is extremely rare and there is only one other example of comparable material, structure and size, possibly made around the same t.mes (see below). It is likely that the present cabinet is one of the pair stated in the entry of the Qing court archives.

Produced over a period of more than 30 years, the painting series One or Two comprises five tieluo (affixed hanging), the largest number of versions among all the imperial portraitures of the Qianlong Emperor. It is historically important because it represents the sitter’s reverence for antiquity and provides a glimpse of his philosophical belief. Modelled after a Song dynasty dual portrait (fig. 3) and executed by Qing court artists, the paintings in the series depict the Qianlong Emperor in a traditional Han-style robe in an antiques-filled room, casually seated in front of a screen suspending a further portrait of himself. Each of the paintings in the series is inscribed with a perplexing poem: ‘One or two? Neither come together; nor separate. Can be a Confucian scholar; can be a Mohist. Why should I worry, or even contemplate’ (Wu Hung, The Double Screen: Medium and Representation in Chinese Painting, Chicago, 1996, p. 235).

These five paintings are preserved in the Palace Museum, Beijing. Except for one which is of poor condition, all of them have been extensively published and studied; see for examples: Chiu Shih-Hua, ‘Jie’erliansan: Qing Gaozong bianzhuangxiang si zheng xilun [One after another: Analysis of four portraits of the Qianlong Emperor in cost.mes s]’, The National Palace Museum Monthly of Chinese Art, vol. 368, November 2013, pp. 68-79, figs 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4; and Zhang Lu, ‘One or Two?: Self-representation in Emperor Qianlong’s Portraiture’, Wang Tao, Mirroring China’s Past: Emperors and Their Bronzes, Chicago, 2018, pp. 144-147, figs 1a-d. According to Kristina Kleutghen, among the four published paintings, the Changchun shuwu (Studio of Eternal Spring) version is the earliest and was probably painted in the early years of the reign (fig. 1), followed by the Yangxindian (Hall of Mental Cultivation) version (fig. 2) and then the Narayana Cave version, with the only dated version Gengzi changzhi yue at the last (Qianlong 45th year, 1780); see ‘One or Two, Repictured’, Archives of Asian Art, 2012, vol. 62, pp. 25-46. Numerous court artists have taken part in the project, including Lu Can, Yao Wenhan and Jia Quan. It is suggested that Giuseppe Castiglione (1688-1766) could have contributed to the painting of the Emperor’s face in the earlier version (Chiu, pp. 72-73; Kleutghen, pp. 26-28).

In terms of composition, the scene in the present cabinet closely follows that of the Mental Cultivation version (fig. 2), as evident in the painting of the screen and the long object in the bronze gu beaker. The Xin dynasty bronze Jia-liang (fig. 4) of great historical significance as it established the measurement standard is also depicted in the cabinet. The sitter, however, appears slightly plumper than that in the Mental Cultivation version, suggesting that the scene in the cabinet is of a slightly later date.

Through the European Jesuits who served the court, state-of-the-art science and technology were introduced to the Qing emperors, who found the theories and application of optics and perspective particularly fascinating. With the involvement and influence of Jesuit artists such as Giuseppe Castiglione, a new style combining Western realism and traditional brushwork emerged. In the 7th year of the Yongzheng reign (1729), thanks to Castiglione’s assistance in translation and explanation, Imperial Household Manager Nian Xiyao (1678-1739) completed the first Chinese book on perspective Shixue [The study of vision]. Besides the illustrations originally published by the Italian artist and architect Andrea Pozzo (1642-1709) in Perspectiva Pictorum Et Architectorum (1693), the Chinese treatise includes 59 additional line drawings, which could have been jointly executed by Castiglione and his students (Lin Lina, ‘Cong “Huojidang” kan Yongzheng chao de gongting huihua huodong [A analysis on Yongzheng court painting production according to Qing court archives]’, The National Palace Museum Monthly of Chinese Art, vol. 319, October 2009, pp. 38-51, p. 44). To illustrate the principles of linear perspective and the illusion of depth, a couple of drawings in Nian’s book depict multiple overlapping picture panels, forming a structure not dissimilar to the present cabinet (fig. 5).

The present cabinet is carved from agarwood, known as chenxiang or qinan in Chinese, a timbre highly valued for its fragrance. Along with tanxiang (sandalwood), agarwood was burnt as incense in Buddhist rituals. A record from the 54th year (1789) documents that among the valuable tributes from Siam were only 3 catties of agarwood, while there were 600 catties of ivory and 150 catties of sandalwood (Ji Ruoxin, ed., Uncanny Ingenuity and Celestial Feasts. The carving of Ming and Qing Dynasties. The Art of Bamboo, Wood and Fruit Stones, Taipei, 2009, pp. 102-3). Due to its scarcity, agarwood carvings are often made of separate sections of wood joined together, as seen in the present cabinet.

The only other example of this scale (56 by 25 by h. 81 cm), possibly made around the same t.mes , was first auctioned at Christie’s London, 15th May 2007, lot 34 and later sold twice at Poly Beijing, 5th June 2012, lot 6051, and 8th December 2018, lot 5450. Carved in relief with Chinese-style buildings in a landscape and equipped with eyeslits showing a marit.mes seascape and a European cityscape, it celebrates cultural exchange between the East and the West. These objects of curiosity are precisely the results of such interactions. In contrast, with an antiquity-inspired dual portrait of Qianlong on one side and the paradise of eternal bliss on the other, the present cabinet represents the Dragon Emperor in the continuity of history, bridging past and future, reality and the world beyond t.mes .

一方明鏡，映照的既是幻象，亦是真實。直面鏡中倒影，見我卻非我，有如鏡花水月，窺見內心的渴望、靈魂的形狀，又或者是真正的「自我」。這座十八世紀的清宮西洋座鏡約於1752年奉旨製作，應是乾隆帝喜愛的玩意。試想像，皇帝第一眼看見這座以西洋技法製造的光學儀器時，眼前浮現的是另一個自己——另一個由光影反射而來的鏡中皇帝。

環顧歷朝歷代的帝君，乾隆下令繪製的御容聖像數量可謂首屈一指。有說他之所以執著於親眼從畫像中看見自己的容貌，原因是他「一而再、再而三地挑戰虛實之間的界限」（Kristina Kleutghen，〈One or Two, Repictured〉，《Archives of Asian Art》，第62期，2012年，頁25-46）。關於乾隆在鏡中看見自身的想像，很容易讓我們聯想到法國精神分析學大師拉岡的「鏡像階段」（mirror stage）。根據此論述，當人類首次意識到自己與內在及外在世界的關係時，就踏入了意識塑造的第一階段。

當乾隆凝視著鏡中倒影時，他也許會注意到右方有一圓孔。若靠近前去一探究竟，就能看見以「畫中畫」手法繪製的畫像。像中的乾隆帝身穿宋儒衣袍，身旁古物環繞。

畫像以《是一是二圖》為據。《是一是二圖》是眾多乾隆畫像中的一個版本，前後總共有五幅貼落。畫中人並未作帝皇打扮，然而每一幅畫的陳設皆經過悉心佈置，而且略有不同。五畫均屬北京故宮博物院典藏，所繪之景象與本座鏡孔內的袖珍之境非常接近。《是一是二圖》得名自乾隆在畫上的御題詩文，五畫中的十六字短詩雖各有差異，開頭卻均以「是一是二」作為提問。

究竟何謂一，何謂二？最顯而易見的答案，是畫像和畫中畫所指代的自身。另一種解讀則認為，乾隆的提問其實是一句質疑，詰問人類的內在與外在本質，直指在如夢似幻、虛實交織的邊界徘徊的意識。

乾隆皇帝素來喜愛中西合璧的獨特設計，此座鏡珍罕難得，其由來正好體現東西文明互鑒的結果。乾隆一朝繁榮富強，科學、藝術、文化發展達到頂峰，歐洲傳教士來華宣教，為乾隆皇帝進貢前所未見的奇技珍寶，包括各式與光學、音樂、機械相關的儀器。據說「西洋鏡箱」由十五世紀意大利密碼學家萊昂・巴蒂斯塔・阿伯提發明，十七世紀在歐洲風行一時。密封的鏡箱內藏多層平面牌畫，配合內置透鏡和鏡子，從鏡孔窺之可見圖畫產生猶如實景般的深遠感。乾隆皇帝得見如此神奇寶物，也許讓他也想擁有別具個人特色的鏡箱，特命宮廷工匠依樣仿製。

西洋座鏡傳世甚少，工藝水平能達此座鏡者更屈指可數。此座鏡集各家設計之大成，融匯東西美學，反映清宮的品味變化。座鏡採用沉香木製成，龍飾雕工細膩，再裝配西方水銀鏡。沉香木異常珍貴，工匠經常與其他木料混合使用，只將沉香木用在製品局部，而此座鏡全用沉香木製作而成，實屬不可多得。與此座鏡同類之光學玩意僅有一例，該沉香木座鏡設兩窺孔，從孔中分別可見西洋景致和海上風光（見下文）。此座鏡難得一見，很有可能一直深藏宮中，密不外傳。

比起普通鏡子帶來的新奇體驗，這座西洋鏡也許包含著某種更加令人琢磨不透的用意。試想一下，當乾隆發現自己的畫像成為供人觀賞的一部分時，那種對固有虛實認知的顛覆、以及對內心造成的衝擊該是何等震撼。然而，如果把目光移向左方孔洞，眼前乍現的卻是一片不知人間何世的蓬萊仙境，彷彿揭示了皇帝心底對身後往生極樂的憧憬。

^{（特此感謝 David Ho 為本文提供意見。）}

遙想當年，穿越迴廊，經過一件又一件的西洋玩意，來到這沉香木雕雲龍座鏡面前，乾隆帝看到鏡中自己，正值盛年貌俊朗。座鏡上方設有兩圓孔，彷彿日月相互輝映，一探才知別有洞天。經斜置鏡子反射，層層牌畫營造立體效果，左方蓬萊仙境，右方乍見御容《是一是二圖》，嘖嘖稱奇。當時初觀其像，莫不念鏡中花、水中月、夢中蝶，自我與非己，虛實難辨。

據清宮造辦處活計檔，乾隆十七年十一月初一日（1752年12月6日），「傳做擺水法殿西洋鏡一對」，用庫內錫片。此西洋座鏡或正是檔案所列成對之一。現知與此沉香木浮雕座鏡同類者僅一，比例雖異，同樣巨碩，很大可能同時製造（見下文）。

乾隆御容畫像中，以《是一是二圖》的版本最多，前後共製有五幅貼落，橫跨逾三十載，可悉此畫意構圖非比尋常。宮廷畫師傚法宋代「畫中畫」人物坐像（圖三），為高宗繪變裝御容。滿室古物環抱，高宗身穿漢服，手執書卷，正坐榻上，身後屏風掛聖容畫軸。畫中人與畫中畫，一左顧，一右盼，相對成趣。畫上御題以詩文開首：「是一是二，不即不離，儒可墨可，何慮何思。」是故得名。五畫均存北京故宮博物院，除一幅因品相欠佳外，其餘四幅著錄甚豐，學術文章眾多（圖見邱士華，〈接二連三：清高宗變裝像四幀析論〉，《故宮文物月刊》，第368期，2013年11月，頁68-79，圖11-1、11-2、11-3、11-4；或張路，〈One or Two?: Self-representation in Emperor Qianlong’s Portraiture〉，汪濤，《吉金鑑古：皇室與文人的青銅器收藏》，芝加哥，2018年，頁144-147，圖1a-d）。據 Kristina Kleutghen，出版的四畫中，以長春書屋本年代最早（圖一），應繪於乾隆初年，其次為養心殿本（圖二），之後是那羅延窟本，較唯一紀年乾隆四十五年（1780年）的庚子長至月本年代稍早；詳見專文〈One or Two, Repictured〉，《Archives of Asian Art》，2012年，第62期，頁25-46。參與的畫師有陸燦、姚文瀚、賈全等，有學者更指郎世寧或曾為早期版本繪御容（邱士華，頁72-73；Kleutghen，頁26-28）。

比較故宮藏畫，鏡孔內袖珍之境與養心殿本（圖二）最為接近，屏風山水構圖相類，銅觚內也同樣置有長物。因尺幅之限，難繪細節，但鏡孔內境也畫有統一度量衡的歷史重器「新莽嘉量」（圖四及五）。然觀面相，高宗臉龐略顯豐腴，由此推斷鏡中境的繪製年代應略晚於養心殿本。

清初自傳教士進京，引入歐洲嶄新技法與儀器，其中光影視學之事，尤獲宮廷關注，利用西洋技巧繪成的宮廷畫作應運而生。著名意大藉傳教士畫師郎世寧（Giuseppe Castiglione，1688-1766年）奉命把焦點透視之法授予宮廷畫師，是為「線法畫」，在畫面上營造深度，更形立體。雍正七年（1729年），總管內務府大臣年希堯（1678-1739年），受益於郎世寧的翻譯講解，撰成中國第一部闡釋焦點透視原理的《視學》專書，除了重刻意大利畫家兼建築師安德列．波索修士（Andrea Pozzo，1642-1709年）成於1693年的《建築繪畫透視》圖版外，附印透視線描圖五十九幅，它們可能乃由郎世寧或其門生合作完成（林莉娜，〈從《活計檔》看雍正朝的宮廷繪畫活動〉，《故宮文物月刊》，第319期，2009年10月，頁38-51，頁44）。書中有插圖以層疊畫片展示透視原理，並指「如法畫去，自有天然深遠之妙」，圖中結構與此座鏡如出一轍（圖六）。

座鏡採極為珍貴的沉香木製。沉香，清檔中又稱枷楠香木，與檀香木一樣，除可用作雕刻材料，還宜於焚燒供佛。據五十四年（1789年）暹羅貢品清單，象牙六百斤，檀香一百五十斤，但沉香卻只得三斤，足見沉香極為珍稀（嵇若昕編，《匠心與仙工：明清雕刻展．竹木果核篇》，台北，2009年，頁102-3）。由於珍稀，傳世清代沉香木雕多乃由小塊湊成，如此座鏡，以大料拼接也是無可厚非。

如前所述，同類之沉香木浮雕座鏡僅一傳世，尺寸雖異（56 x 25 x 高 81 公分），但製作年代應同。該例初在倫敦佳士得2007年5月15日拍出，編號34，後兩度售於北京保利，分別為2012年6月5日，編號6051及2018年12月8日，編號5450。該座鏡浮雕中式山水樓閣，水門與月洞中別有境致，一面是航海冒險，另一面則是歐式城市人物，彷彿引領觀者經鏡孔越洋穿洲，一睨外面的世界。若把雕山水樓閣之例看成東西中外交匯，那此龍紋座鏡，既有天子居內、宋畫為據、古物作飾，配上另一面的蓬萊仙境，是過去、現在與未來的交織，也是乾隆皇帝就時間與歷史的自我反思。