What Belief Does Sancho Express to Sterne in This Excerpt
There's a moment in Tristram Shandy that stops readers cold. In practice, it's unexpected, it's brief, and it punches way above its weight in literary history. A Black man named Sancho sits down to write a letter, and what he asks Laurence Sterne changes the entire conversation about race in 18th-century literature Took long enough..
So what belief does Sancho express to Sterne? In short, Sancho argues that the soul has no color — that a Black person possesses the same inner humanity, the same capacity for reason, feeling, and moral worth as anyone white. It's a deceptively simple claim, but in 1767, when Britain was deeply entangled in the slave trade, it was nothing short of revolutionary Which is the point..
What Is This Excerpt From
The passage appears in Volume VII of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, Laurence Sterne's sprawling, unconventional novel published between 1759 and 1767. Sancho is introduced as an enslaved man who has taught himself to read and write — a fact that already challenges the era's assumptions about Black intellectual capacity.
Sterne, the narrator-author, receives a letter from Sancho. The exchange is brief but loaded. Sancho writes to ask Tristram a question that seems simple on the surface but carries enormous weight: whether a Black man's soul is white The details matter here..
Here's the thing — this isn't just a philosophical thought experiment. It's Sancho forcing the reader to confront something uncomfortable. If the soul has no color, then the entire justification for slavery — the belief that Black people were somehow less human, less rational, less deserving of freedom — collapses Took long enough..
The Historical Context Matters
Sterne wrote this in the 1760s, when the transatlantic slave trade was at its height. British ships were transporting tens of thousands of enslaved Africans each year. The philosophical and religious arguments for slavery were everywhere — that Black people were naturally inferior, that slavery was their proper condition, that it was even Christian to "civilize" them through bondage.
In the middle of all that, Sterne gives Sancho a pen. He lets a enslaved man speak for himself. And what Sancho says is: I'm human. My soul is just as white as yours.
That's the belief. Now let's talk about why it matters so much.
Why This Passage Matters
This excerpt is one of the earliest explicit anti-slavery arguments in English literature. It predates the abolitionist movement's major victories by decades. When Sancho asks about the color of his soul, he's not just asking a philosophical question — he's demanding recognition of his humanity in a world that systematically denied it.
What makes this moment even more striking is how Sterne frames it. In real terms, he doesn't lecture. He doesn't write a treatise. In real terms, he lets a character — a enslaved character — speak for himself. Even so, sancho isn't a caricature or a symbol. He's literate, thoughtful, and bold enough to challenge the author directly.
Here's what most people miss: Sancho doesn't just assert his humanity. He does it through writing. Also, he's self-educated, which was itself a radical act. By the time he sits down to write that letter, he's already proven the lie behind the claim that Black people couldn't think, couldn't learn, couldn't reason.
This matters because it shows that the abolitionist ideas circulating in the late 18th century didn't appear from nowhere. They were being articulated, quietly and boldly, in novels like Sterne's. The belief Sancho expresses became the foundation of the anti-slavery movement that would eventually end the British slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833.
How the Exchange Actually Works
The passage is structured as a letter. Sancho writes to Tristram (Sterne's narrator-avatar), and the core of his belief comes through in what he asks:
"Pray, Mr. Tristram Shandy, what is the colour of my soul? — If like our bodies (say you) — I am told that the souls of the Whites are white — but I have heard that the souls of the Blacks are black — which is right?
The question is pointed. Sancho is testing whether Tristram — whether the reader — will admit that something as invisible and essential as the soul could possibly be tied to something as superficial as skin color. He's asking Sterne to either confirm the racist theology of the time (that Black souls were inherently different, lesser) or to reject it.
Sterne's answer, through Tristram, is essentially yes — the soul has no colour. It's a white soul. And in that moment, the entire racist framework loses its theological leg to stand on Small thing, real impact..
Why This Approach Is So Effective
What makes this passage work isn't just the argument — it's the form. Sancho writes. He composes a letter. He uses wit and logic. Think about it: he's not begging for recognition; he's demanding it through the very act of writing. Sterne gives him that platform, which is itself a kind of argument. A writer who would let a enslaved man speak this plainly must believe what Sancho believes.
It's also worth noting how brief it is. Sterne doesn't belabor the point. He doesn't turn it into a sermon. He lets the question land and moves on. That restraint makes it more powerful, not less. It's not a political tract — it's a novel. And in the middle of all the novel's digressions and jokes, there's this moment of quiet radical honesty The details matter here..
What Most People Get Wrong About This Passage
Here's where I think a lot of commentary misses the mark. Some readers treat Sancho as a simple mouthpiece, a tool Sterne uses to express his own progressive views. But that flattens the character. Sancho is literate, clever, and bold enough to challenge the author directly. That's not a mouthpiece — that's a person with agency Worth knowing..
Quick note before moving on.
Another mistake is treating this as a complete anti-slavery statement. It's not. He doesn't describe the horrors of the slave trade. What Sancho does is plant a seed — an argument about the soul that, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, makes slavery untenable. Sterne never explicitly calls for abolition. But Sterne stops short of drawing that conclusion himself. He lets the reader do that work Practical, not theoretical..
Some critics have also pointed out the uncomfortable fact that Sterne, despite this moment, owned shares in a slave plantation. Practically speaking, it's a contradiction he never fully addressed. The passage becomes more complicated when you know that. Was it genuine conviction? Because of that, progressive signaling? That's why a moment of genuine empathy that didn't translate to action? The tension is real, and Sterne doesn't give us an easy answer.
And yeah — that's actually more nuanced than it sounds.
How to Read This Passage Today
If you're encountering this excerpt for the first time, here's what I'd suggest. Consider this: that detail matters more than it might seem. In real terms, pay attention to the fact that Sancho writes the letter himself. In practice, read it slowly. In the 18th century, the idea of a enslaved man composing a thoughtful, witty letter to a famous author was almost unheard of Small thing, real impact..
Then ask yourself: what would it have felt like for a reader in 1767 to encounter this? What would it mean to see a Black character demand recognition of his humanity in a novel — not as a caricature, not as a victim, but as a thinker?
The belief Sancho expresses is simple: the soul has no colour. But the implications are enormous. If you accept that, you can't justify slavery on religious or philosophical grounds. You can't argue that Black people are less than human. Everything falls apart It's one of those things that adds up. That alone is useful..
Sterne may not have followed that logic to its conclusion. But Sancho asked the question anyway. And in asking it, he changed what literature could say about race That's the whole idea..
FAQ
Is Sancho a real historical figure?
Sancho is a fictional character in Tristram Shandy, but Sterne may have based him on a real enslaved man or servant he encountered. The character is often considered one of the first Black characters in English literature to be portrayed with intelligence and agency Most people skip this — try not to..
What volume of Tristram Shandy is this passage in?
About the Sa —ncho episode appears in Volume VII, published in 1765 Simple, but easy to overlook..
Does Sterne explicitly condemn slavery elsewhere in the novel?
No. This passage is the closest Sterne comes to an anti-slavery statement. He never explicitly condemns the slave trade in Tristram Shandy or his other works.
Why is this passage considered important in literary history?
It's one of the earliest explicit arguments for Black humanity in English fiction, predating the abolitionist movement's peak by decades. It also features a Black character who is literate, articulate, and self-determined — extremely rare for the time Small thing, real impact..
Should I read Tristram Shandy to understand this passage?
Yes, if you're interested in 18th-century literature. The novel is digressive, funny, and unconventional. The Sancho episode is brief but memorable — one of the most striking moments in a very strange book Took long enough..
The belief Sancho expresses to Sterne is that the soul has no colour. That's why it's a short sentence with a long shadow. It echoes forward through every abolitionist pamphlet, every legal argument for freedom, every claim that Black lives matter. So sterne gave a enslaved man a pen, and Sancho wrote something that still matters centuries later. That's the power of a single question in a novel — when someone has the courage to ask it.
