“文学”与“想象”在中国文化中都成词较早,但并不相互解释,而它们之间的相互解释正是新文学观念转换的开端与关键。钱锺书曾认为:“至民国之新文学,渊源泰西;体制性德,绝非旧日之遗,为有意之创辟,非无形之转移,事实昭然,不关理论。”类似的看法鲁迅在《门外文谈·不识字的作家》(1934)中也谈到:文学“这不是从‘文学子游子夏’上割下来的,是从日本输入,他们的对于英文Literature的译名。”我们讨论中国“文学”(literature)观念的现代性,是不能以literature汉译为“文学”为起点的,而应该从“文学”与“想象”等概念相互解释开始,因为古代汉语语境里的“文学”与西洋语境里的literature都有太多、太复杂的所指。“文学”“想 Literary and imaginative pronouns in Chinese culture are earlier, but do not explain each other, and the mutual interpretation between them is the beginning and the key of the new literary concept conversion. Qian Zhongshu once thought: ”The new literature to the Republic of China originated in Thailand. Institutional morality is by no means the legacy of the old days. It is not a matter of theory for the intentional creation and non-invisible transfer. Opinion Lu Xun also talked about in “An English Speaking and Illiterate Writer” (1934): “This is not a cut from the summer of literary son Zu, but is imported from Japan. Their translation of English Literature We can not start with the translation of literature into ”literature“, but from the perspectives of ”literature“ and ”imagination“. The concept mutual explanation begins, because ”literature“ in the ancient Chinese context and the literature in the Western context are too many, too complicated. ”Literature “ ”think