I've heard a lot of people recently use the phrase "speak my truth"; some earnestly, some ironically, but either way it got me thinking about what I do for a living.
As part of that thought process, I wanted to touch upon a question that has troubled eulogy writers like me, not to mention mourners, celebrants and awkward relatives at funerals and wakes for generations; must a eulogy always be kind?
I don't think it's too much of a shock to tell you that eulogies are meant to honour the dead, to paint their legacy in broad strokes of warmth and admiration.
By their very nature, they are designed to be a tribute to the departed, a final act of storytelling that seeks to encapsulate a life in a few fleeting moments.
Yet, as I'm sure anyone who has attended any family gathering will tell you, not every life is an unbroken symphony of goodness.
We all make mistakes and people are complex. Some are loved despite their faults, others leave behind deep wounds as well as fond memories.
So, when we gather to eulogise those we've lost, should we sanitise the past or speak our whole truth?
The Tradition of Speaking Well
The convention of speaking kindly of the dead isn't new by any means, in fact it dates back centuries.
The Latin phrase "De mortuis nihil nisi bonum" means "Of the dead, speak nothing but good" urges us to let bygones be bygones once someone has passed away.
This maxim, attributed to the ancient Greeks, suggests that it is disrespectful, even cruel, to speak ill of those who can no longer defend themselves. And yet, I wonder if this rule does a disservice to the truth.
If we only speak of the good, are we not creating a one-dimensional portrait, a caricature that fails to capture the full essence of the person?
Are we not, in some way, denying the complexity of their existence?
After all, funerals are not criminal tribunals, nor are they therapy sessions where every unresolved grievance should be aired. Instead, I think they serve a different purpose, to help the living find peace.
A well-crafted eulogy provides comfort to the grieving, emphasising what was best in the deceased. It allows those in mourning to hold onto the meaningful, the beautiful and the cherished.
If every eulogy were a warts-and-all exposé, funerals might become uncomfortable affairs, marked by hesitant claps and bemused glances exchanged between the mourners.
“He was a man of many opinions, most of them stupid, just like him" might get a few smirks, but it is hardly the farewell anyone would hope to hear at the memorial service of a loved one.
Should We Only Speak Kindly of the Dead?
As I've just touched upon, the tradition of eulogising the dead is ancient, rooted in the human need to honour and remember.
It speaks of their virtues, their accomplishments, their kindness and their love. We celebrate the light they brought into the world, and rightly so.
Death has a way of softening our judgments, of reminding us that life is fragile and that every person carries within them a balance of both beauty and brokenness.
But in our desire to be kind, do we risk erasing the very humanity of the person we are remembering?
After all, to be human is to be flawed, so the question remains; should we only speak kindly of the dead?
Consider this.
What if the deceased was a person who caused irreparable harm? What if their actions left scars on the lives of others that may never heal? Should we ignore those truths in favour of a more polished narrative?
To do so might spare the feelings of those gathered, but it could also feel like a betrayal; to the victims, to the truth and even to the memory of the deceased.
For if we cannot acknowledge the entirety of a person’s life, can we truly say we are honouring them fully? Or are we merely crafting a convenient fiction?
The Case for Honesty
Despite what tradition has taught us, there is an argument for truth-telling in eulogies.
When we omit the less savoury aspects of a person's character, we risk erasing the complexity of their story.
If someone was difficult, stubborn or even outright unkind, isn’t there value in acknowledging this?
Should we not, in some way, offer a fuller portrait? One that reflects the totality of their existence rather than just its most polished moments?
A carefully balanced eulogy might acknowledge imperfection while highlighting growth. Such as:
“She was headstrong, some might say inflexible, but she used that tenacity to fight for what she believed in”.
Such honesty does not diminish a person’s worth; rather, it presents them as a whole, fallible human being. Aren't we all.
Yet, there is also a fine line between authenticity and cruelty.
A eulogy should never become an indictment. It is not the time to settle scores. It is, instead, a time for grace.
Maybe the question should be rephrased to "How much truth can be spoken before grace is lost?"
Ethical Dilemmas of the Flawed Eulogy
Imagine a man known for his sharp business acumen but also for his sharp tongue or a woman who inspired many, but failed those closest to her.
What does 'justice' look like in their eulogies?
If we tell the truth, warts and all, do we wound their loved ones anew? If we embellish only their positive traits, do we betray reality?
There is also the question of whose grief takes precedence.
If the deceased was difficult, it won't have been a secret so must their mourners endure an airbrushed version of their life?
Should a eulogy respect the feelings of those who suffered at the hands of the deceased, or should it offer them an opportunity for closure?
Perhaps the ethical answer lies in choosing which truths serve a purpose.
Acknowledging someone's failings with compassion can be a form of healing. It could include something like:
“He wasn’t always easy to love, but he was loved all the same”.
Such words allow space for honesty without overshadowing the purpose of a eulogy, to bid farewell with dignity.
A Middle Path
I believe the best eulogies find a way to honour without distortion. They should not turn a villain into a saint, but nor should they take pleasure in exposing faults.
Instead, they acknowledge humanity’s dual nature, our triumphs and stumbles, our light and our shade.
Maybe a truly ethical eulogy is one that allows the deceased their complexity while granting the mourners peace.
In other words, it does not seek to rewrite history, but it chooses which parts of the story will help those left behind move forward. It is a final act of kindness, one last chance to find meaning in a life now concluded.
This is not to say that eulogies should become platforms for airing grievances or settling scores.
There is a time and a place for such conversations and a funeral may not be it. But perhaps there is a middle ground; a way to acknowledge the complexities of a person’s life without diminishing their humanity or causing unnecessary pain.
Perhaps we can speak of their struggles as well as their strengths, their failures as well as their triumphs.
In doing so, we might create a more honest and meaningful tribute, one that reflects the messy, imperfect reality of being human.
There is also the question of who the eulogy is for.
Is it for the dead, who can no longer hear our words?
Or is it for the living, who must carry on in their absence?
If it is for the living, then perhaps the ethics of eulogies must also consider the needs of those left behind.
For some, hearing only the positive may bring comfort, a balm for their grief. For others, glossing over the truth may feel like a betrayal, a denial of their own experiences and emotions.
In this sense, the ethics of eulogies are deeply personal, shaped by the relationships and histories of those involved.
The PostScript
So, should we only speak kindly of the dead? The answer, I think, is both yes.... and no.
Yes, because kindness is a virtue and because death calls us to empathy, to recognise the shared humanity that binds us all.
But also no, because the truth matters and because to ignore the shadows is to deny the fullness of a life.
Perhaps the most ethical eulogy is one that strikes a balance, one that honours the light without erasing the dark, that speaks with compassion but also with honesty.
As a professional eulogy writer, I obviously take my cues from the families I work with. It's up to them if and how they want to mourn their loved ones and their flaws. There's no right and wrong answers.
After all, our flaws might be the one human trait we are all guaranteed to share at the end of our lives.
Personally, I wouldn't object to some of my less desirable traits used as part of my eulogy. I think my family and friends love me despite my flaws, not because of them.
And so, as I try and lay this question to rest, let's all remember that the best eulogies do not merely tell the story of a person’s life. They tell the story of what we choose to carry forward. And trust me, that is a burden and a privilege, once we must bear with care.
Thanks for reading. It's something a little different from my usual content, but I hope you enjoyed it. It's a thought-provoking topic for sure so I'd love to know what you think.
Should eulogies only focus on the good aspects of the deceased, or are there ways to incorporate the less positive aspects of their character? How would you want to be remembered? Let me know in the comments below.
Thanks to those on BlueSky and Substack who shared their thoughts with me prior to this blogs release. I apprecaite your input.
If you need a eulogy, whether a bespoke one written from scratch or one you have already needs a professional polish, then please get in touch and let's talk about how I can help.
Comments