Sword of justice

The Sword of justice is the emblem of legal authority that Henry V entrusts to the Lord Chief-Justice, joining the image of the sword to that of the balance. Its decisive significance lies in the reversal of their earlier positions: the king recalls that the judge once committed him, and now commits the instrument of justice to the judge’s keeping, asking him to exercise the same impartial spirit even against the king himself.

Identity and Meaning

The sword is presented as an object the Lord Chief-Justice has already used to bear, and Henry calls it unstained. The play does not give it a separate history or describe its physical appearance; its meaning emerges from the public act of entrusting it. In the king’s address, it accompanies the balance, bringing together the judgment of disputes and the power to enforce judgment. The paired emblems make justice more than a private virtue: they represent an office whose authority must be exercised with fairness and resolve.

The word unstained matters because the king connects the sword’s condition to the judge’s conduct. Henry does not merely praise the Lord Chief-Justice’s past service or offer him a new token of favor. He asks him to carry the sword with the same bold, just, and impartial spirit he had shown before. Its symbolic force therefore depends on the standard attached to it: authority is worthy of trust when it is not bent to spare the powerful, including the ruler who confers it.

The Judge’s Record

The transfer recalls the Lord Chief-Justice’s earlier dealings with Falstaff. He had summoned Falstaff to answer matters that might cost him his life, and later rebuked him for wrenching the true cause into a false one. These moments establish the judge as a figure who insists on hearing and evaluating a case rather than yielding to a confident manner or a crowd of words. The sword’s association with impartial justice is thus grounded in his demonstrated willingness to confront evasion through legal authority.

That record becomes especially pointed when the Lord Chief-Justice defends his conduct as honorable and guided by an impartial soul. The king’s response does not ask him to withdraw the judgment or soften the principle. Instead, Henry affirms that the judge weighs the matter well and tells him to continue bearing both balance and sword. The object carries forward a standard already tested in the judge’s treatment of others: the law’s authority must not depend on the status of the person before it.

Transfer to Henry V’s Justice

Henry makes the sword’s transfer personal by recalling that the Lord Chief-Justice committed him. The king then declares that he commits the sword into the judge’s hand. The repeated idea of commitment reverses the direction of authority without erasing the earlier act: the judge’s power to restrain the prince is now recognized as a service the king wishes to preserve. Rather than treating his accession as a reason to place himself beyond judgment, Henry presents his former subjection to law as evidence for the judge’s fitness to hold its emblem.

The king’s instructions also set a limit on the meaning of royal favor. He wishes the judge well and promises that his honors may increase, but the charge attached to the sword is to act as impartially against Henry as he acted against him before. The gift is therefore not simply a reward. It is a delegation that binds the new king to the principle represented by the object: the sword is to remain in the hands of a judge whose duty is not altered by royal identity.

Political and Dramatic Significance

The sword makes visible a distinction between possession of the crown and administration of justice. Henry is king, yet he describes himself as having been subject to the judge’s authority and entrusts the means of justice to that same office. The scene presents royal legitimacy not only as succession, but also as a willingness to uphold an authority capable of checking the monarch. The sword’s force in this exchange lies less in any action it performs than in the relationship it formalizes between ruler and judge.

Its transfer also resolves the tension between justice as an ideal and justice as an exercise of power. Earlier, the Lord Chief-Justice used his authority in proceedings involving Falstaff; now Henry publicly confirms that this authority should persist under the new reign. The king’s praise and the judge’s instrument are bound together by a condition of impartiality. As a result, the Sword of justice stands for a continuing legal charge: to wield power boldly and fairly, even when the person subject to it is the sovereign who has entrusted it.