Öz
The Canterbury Tales as one of the pioneers in English literature was written by Geoffrey Chaucer in the 14th century. After 600 years, it was translated with the title “Canterbury Masalları” by A. Vahit Turhan in 1949 as an extension of a seminar course. The work has an important place in English literary history in terms of its authenticity and British sense of humor. As for its importance in terms of Turkish translation history, it is the first humor translation from the West during the Republican period. This paper discusses the concept humor and the effects of cultural distances and differences on translation and translator’s decisions in humor translation. For this purpose, it studies both original work and translation to disclose how the humor translation was influenced by the period and social conditions based on the concepts of “para-culture”, “dia-culture” and “idio-culture” as cited by Hans Vermeer in Skopos Theory. As a philological translation aiming to introduce English literature to Turkish literature, it studies the place of the translation in the Turkish literary polysystem, its importance as an academic activity and the role of translator’s identity in influencing translation decisions. In addition, it explains how the two cultures with a quite different sense of humor can meet in a work that basically addresses the universal human feelings based on the data in the Turkish version. In this context, this paper is methodologically divided into two parts as source and target culture. These sections in thematic order are as follows; The place of The Canterbury Tales in English culture (para-culture), the place of Geoffrey Chaucer as an author in society (dia-culture), and his personality as an individual (idio-culture). The second part of the article, which is the main part of the study is follows; The social and national place of the Turkish version (para-culture), its historical importance as an academic activity (dia-culture), and personality of A. Vahit Turhan as an intellectual and translator who launched and directed this activity. As a result, this paper evaluates the story of how the Turkish version ended in “domestication” in the Turkish literary system, and turned into a “published product” as a philological activity within the context of translation history.