清高宗曾以內府所藏宋人〈無款人物圖〉為張本，命人繪製了多幅佈局類似的圖畫，以其上皆有皇帝親題：「是一是二，不即不離。儒可墨可，何慮何思。」故稱〈是一是二圖〉。本文嘗試從歷史情境切入，討論畫作中被繪入「逼真」器物的狀況，在當時如何可能，從而突出畫作的特殊之處。接著，取用社會學家戈夫曼（Goffman Erving）分析人類互動的戲劇理論框架，引入「前臺」（front stage）、「後臺」（back stage）等概念，可知相對於「前臺」的乾隆皇帝，〈是一是二圖〉則表現了清高宗萬幾餘暇的「後臺」形象。同時參照雍正朝曾靜案中對皇帝私生活與私德的攻擊，可知此其乃根植於「非我族類，其心必異」構想，直指「異族」皇帝「後臺」形象的不堪聞問。相對於雍正皇帝在《大義覺迷錄》大量揭露「後臺」皇家私事的應對策略，在〈是一是二圖〉中，乾隆皇帝身居「後臺」以及與漢族文人形象相疊合的裝扮，恰是漢族文人最普遍表現「前臺」形象，這不只打造了清高宗在皇帝身份之外自我形象，同時還回應了漢族對其身份的內在質疑。

Emperor Qianlong once had many paintings produced whose layout is similar and based on Human Figue without Caption, a Song painting in his royal court collection. On all of them is handwritten by the Emperor “It’s both sole and dual, neither joint nor separate. Either Confucianism or Mohism works; why fret and ruminate?” Hence it is titled Shiyishiertu (painting of sole and dual). This article, examining pertinent historical circumstances, seeks to discuss the conditions of bizhen (reality-approximating) objects in the paintings as well as how this is plausible at that historical juncture so that the features of those paintings may stand out. Next, by utilizing concepts of “front stage” and “back stage” in the theoretical framework by the sociologist Erving Goffman which analyzes human interaction, we may arrive at the understanding that, in contrast to the “front stage” Qianlong, Shiyishiertu exhibits the leisure-in-the-midst-of-hectic-duties image of the Emperor in the back stage. By juxtaposing the assaults on the emperor’s private life and moral character in the Zeng Jing case during the Yongzheng reign, we realize that this accusation is rooted in the belief “Those who do not belong to us ethnically must be alien at heart,” which points directly to the alleged fact that the backstage image of the Manchurian emperor must be too indecent to learn of. In contrast to Yongzheng’s coping strategy of massively exposing royal privacy in Dayijuemilu (Records of great righteousness resolving confusion) compiled under the Yongzheng’s guidance, in the case of Xiyixiertu, the fact that the backstage image of Qianlong dressed as a Han literatus happens to be the most common frontsage image of Han literati not only forges another self-image of Qianlong other than that of the emperor but at the same time serves as a response to the questioning of the Han people over his identity as well.