翻譯與詮釋兩個概念之間有一些共通之處。翻譯與詮釋都必須面對一個根本問題： 我們在詮釋什麼？翻譯什麼？當這個問題以「什麼」作為起始時，這個「什麼」就不可避免地指涉某個尚未明瞭的東西， 某種無可名狀、不可辨別， 但卻又並非不存在的東西。因此詮釋與翻譯往往處於一種進退兩難的處境。一方面，詮釋需要參照，也就是說，它必須是根據某個東西進行閱讀與解釋，但另一方面，也正因為詮釋必須以不同方式述說，它扮演一個差異的角色，每一個詮釋都與其他詮釋不同。 各個詮釋的目的既相同也不同。翻譯的概念與詮釋相似但絕非同一，原文作為翻譯的參照點理應是翻譯的客觀標準，因此「忠於原文」向來是翻譯的指導原則，但是也正因為譯文與原文不可能完全相同，翻譯的任務也就在於表現差異。翻譯與詮釋最為不同的部份，也許可以簡略的說，翻譯更關注譯出語與譯入語之間的轉換。要思考翻譯與詮釋所處的兩難處境，「意義」的問題舉足輕重，可以說，各個翻譯與詮釋之間上演著作者、讀者、譯者、詮釋者等人之間的意義控制的鬥爭。本文從尼采的「權力意志」的說法，以薩拉馬戈的《里斯本圍城史》一書為例，試圖尋找一個重新思考翻譯與詮釋共同面臨的兩難處境的新方向。

Interpretation and translation have something in common, that is, both interpretation and translation must confront a fundamental question: what is to be interpreted/ translated? Interpretation, as well as translation, is situated in a double-bind, since the reference is dispensable for interpretation, and yet, interpretation is by nature a differential element for any given text. Hence interpretation needs a ground as its destination and yet, at the same time, its destination necessarily designates differences. Similar to yet by no means identical with interpretation, translation is involved with this double-bind insofar as an objective standard for translation cannot be discarded and at the same time translation is not an innocent vehicle for communication between different linguistic systems—this is source of the complexity of translation. To think about the double bind in which translation and interpretation are situated, the issue of “meaning” must be raised; hence the determination of meaning in any given text embodies the struggle for the control of meaning between author, reader, interpreter and translator. This paper attempts to present an understanding of this struggle for the control of meaning in terms of Nietzsche’s notion of will-to-power along with the example illustrated in Saramago’s The History of the Siege of Lisbon in order to seek a new way to reconsider the principles of fidelity and freedom which have long dominated the criteria of interpretation and translation.