The phrase “adding insult to injury” seems, on the face of it, to be a bit silly. Is it supposed to mean that after you do somebody harm, calling them names makes it worse?
That’s not what it was intended to mean though — it comes from a time when “insult” didn’t have quite the same meaning as it does today. In fact, the history of the word “insult” is one of slow but steady decline in how harmful it can be. The original “insult” comes from the Latin word “insultāre,” meaning to physically assault someone by leaping at or on them. It could also mean a military assault. That’s how it was used in this passage from 1727: “Having no Fleet at Sea, the Portugueze insulted his Sea-coasts.”
Like many words, “insult” acquired a figurative meaning, but at first this had to do with boasting or gloating over a victory. It was often used this way in the phrase “insult over,” as in this 1831 quote: “We all know that it was not in his nature to insult over the fallen.” This is the sense that gave rise to the phrase “add insult to injury”, which was in use as early as 1805: “It was adding insult to injury, and expenses to both, as it regarded the claimants.”
By the 20th century, “insult” had mostly lost its “physical assault” meaning, and even its verbal connotation began to be toned down to something less than it had been. Or maybe people just began to feel less affronted by name-calling. After all, it’s no longer the custom to fight a duel over being called a chowderhead. All we seem to do with chowderheads nowadays is vote them into various political offices.
