Scholars have long argued that the rhetorical concept of aemulatio best describes the tie between Milton's Paradise Lost and Klopstock's Messias. Against the backdrop of an emerging German national literature, Klopstock's intention was not to merely imitate but to surpass his English predecessor. This view certainly has some merit, particularly since Klopstock himself alluded to this intention. However, crucial differences in aesthetics are obscured if the Messias is read in this sense. In order to challenge this common notion of the relationship between Milton and Klopstock, I analyze concepts of space and divine presence in both epic poems. I show how both Milton and Klopstock presented specific poetic solutions to problems in aesthetics and theology posed by their respective historical ‘situation’ (P. Tillich).

中文翻译：

---

圣人美学。米尔顿和克洛普斯托克的空间函数

长期以来，学者们一直认为 aemulatio 的修辞概念最能描述弥尔顿的《失乐园》和克洛普斯托克的《弥赛亚》之间的联系。在新兴的德国民族文学背景下，克洛普斯托克的意图不仅仅是模仿，而是超越他的英国前辈。这种观点当然有一些优点，特别是因为克洛普斯托克本人暗示了这一意图。然而，如果在这个意义上阅读《弥赛亚》，美学上的关键差异就会变得模糊不清。为了挑战这种关于弥尔顿和克洛普斯托克之间关系的普遍观念，我分析了两首史诗中的空间和神圣存在的概念。我展示了弥尔顿和克洛普斯托克如何针对各自的历史“情境”（P. Tillich）提出的美学和神学问题提出具体的诗意解决方案。