.

Writing to Fliess on May 21, 1894, Freud complained that, They [the doctors in Vienna] look upon me as pretty much of a monomaniac.* This is an interesting claim, although the term monomaniac is somewhat outdated. So what was monomania according to Dr Pritchard, as he defined it in 1837?
Monomania, or partial insanity, in which the understanding is partially disordered or under the influence of some particular illusion, referring to one subject, and involving one train of ideas, while the intellectual powers appear, when exercised on other subjects, to be in a great measure unimpaired. **
Actually, this is not a bad description of Freud's sexual affliction. Anything and everything, when it came to mental diseases, but not only, could be explained as a result of some kind of sexual mishap in one's life. No wonder, Freud was shunned by his contemporaries who, unlike Freud, who was a special case, believed that a person is more than an extension of one's sexual organ. In fact, considering his ubiquitous obsession with sex, Freud's  partial insanity appears to have been the domineering factor in his life.
* Freud, S., The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904, (1985. p. 73).
** Prichard, James Cowles, A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind, (1837, p. 6).

For most, in not all, of his university years, the bisexual Freud was a gigolo selling his services to the highest (male) bidder. Unable to finish his doctor's degree, and having no paying job, Freud came up with a brilliant idea. He would, like a leech, or a parasite, attach himself, to successful doctors, and scientists, and have them "lend" him money, so that he could survive till another day.
True, one day, thanks to academic fraud, Freud managed to pass the examination for the doctor's degree. One of the generous doctors - there were several - and Freud's sugar daddy - Dr Josef Breuer - supported Freud for many years. As a matter of course, Breuer, a successful physician, having almost daily contact with Freud, was able to diagnose him, without fail, early on, but, as long as they were a couple, he kept his observation to himself.
        But not even love last forever. And a day came that Breuer felt he had to tell Freud the truth about who he was. At the time, the unfaithful Freud had already a new lover, Wlhelm Fliess, in Berlin. Possibly, on Breuer's part, it was jealousy talking when he told Freud what his diagnosis was.

More normal

Unsurprisingly, Freud didn't like what he was told. According to him [Breuer] - Freud informed Fliess, on March 1, 1896 - I should have to ask myself every day whether I am suffering from moral insanity or paranoia scientifica.
As every lunatic would, Freud denied there was any proof in Breuer's "accusation". And he proclaimed, I regard myself as the psychically more normal one. *
Isn't it what commonly a mental patient says? It's always the doctor, that diagnosed the mental illness, that is the crazy one.
So what does Breuer's diagnosis tell us about Freud? Paranoia, as it is well known, is the belief that one is being persecuted for no reason, but moral madness is no longer part of our vocabulary.

What is moral insanity?

This is how, Dr Pritchard, defined the term in 1837: Moral insanity or madness consisting in a morbid perversion of the natural feelings, affections, inclinations, temper, habits, moral dispositions, and natural impulses, without any remarkable disorder or defect of the interest or knowing and reasoning faculties, and particularly without any insane illusion or hallucinations.**
This is not a bad definition of the young Freud's problem, that nowadays basically corresponds to the definition of a psychopath.
This is exactly who Freud was, a dangerous psychopath performing his evil deeds under the guise of a medicine doctor. Notably, over time, Freud developed insane pseudo-scientific illusions forming what he called the science of psychoanalysis.
* Freud, S., The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904, (1985. p. 175).
** Prichard, James Cowles, A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind, (1837, p. 6).

To Freud's credit, Freud realised, he wasn't what you would call normal. Thus, in the letter of March 2, 1899, aged 43, Freud informed his bisexual lover in Berlin, Wilhelm Fliess, that things were improving, or rather that he believed that they did, writing, I am apparently much more normal than I was four or five years ago, (1) Freud wrote.
Unfortunately, he was deluding himself, things weren't changing. And, Freud remained a lunatic till the end of his life, which is apparent if one only reads his last written opus, Moses and Monotheism, published in 1938, only a year before his death.

The more normal Martha

No doubt, you are aware of the saying, tell me who you spend your life with, and I will tell you who you are. No wonder that Freud's fiancé, and wife, over time also became affected by Freud's lunacy, not as abnormal as her husband but not far from it. This is what Freud's authorised biographer, Ernest Jones, had to say about her, Martha’s [Freud's wife] temperament, being the more normal of the two, is the easier to describe.  (2)
Most definitely, besides other things, Freud was a perverted sex maniac, just as he had been described by his more critical and sane contemporaries. Freud wasn't hiding his perverted nature. As he explained, recounting his contributions to the theory of sex (and perversions) - as he practised it - He who is in any way psychically abnormal  … is, according to my experience, regularly so in his sexual life. (3)
This is a great explanation of who Freud was and what his sex life was like.
* Freud, S., The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904, (1985. p. 73).
** Jones, Ernest, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, (1953, p. 121).
*** Freud, S., Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex, (1910, p. 13).

Some of the scientists pointed out that the psychoanalytical "science" was nothing more than a perverted person's view of human psychology. Thus, the famous brain anatomist Nissl told one audience in 1910, "It is enough to call this [psychoanalysis] pornography". (5)
Freud's wife, Martha, who knew firsthand what kind of treatments Freud was delivering, agreed. As she told Rene Laforgue, If I did not realise how seriously my husband takes his treatments, I should think that psychoanalysis is a form of pornography. (6)
Notably, even though she knew about the pornographic treatments of his patients on the Freudian couch, the always obedient wife didn't object.

By 1910 the mere mention of Freud's theories was enough to provoke the chairman of a Hamburg congress of German neurologists and psychiatrists, professor Wilhelm Weygandt, to start banging his fist on the table, shouting: This is not a topic for discussion at a scientific meeting; it is a matter for the police. (5)
Unfortunately, like Don Quixote, Weygandt was fighting weather mills and lost. It was already too late to stop the Freudian craze that lasted almost a century, continuing, to a much lesser extent, to this very day.
(1) Clark, Ronald, Freud, the Man and the Cause, (1980, p. 39).
(2) SE, 20, p. 52. (An autobiographical study.)
(3) Clark, (1980, p. 271).
(4) James, William, The letters of William James, (1920, p. 328).
(5) Clark, (1980, p. 285).
(6) Laforgue, Rene, Personal Memories of Freud, (1956, p. 342), in Ruitenbeek, Hendrik M., ed., Freud as We Knew Him, (1973).

Freud’s contemporaries knew exactly what he was, a fraud. No wonder that Freud was shunned by the medical establishment in Vienna.
As one of his followers, Wilhelm Reich, recalled,
In 1919, there was a very small circle … about eight men. At the Psychiatric Clinic, they were laughed at. In the medical school, they were laughed at. Freud was laughed at. (1)
Yet another of Freud's followers, Max Graf, recalled that,
In those days when one mentioned Freud's name in a Viennese gathering, everyone would begin to laugh, as if someone had told a joke. Freud was the queer fellow who ... imagined himself an interpreter of dreams.

A sex maniac

More than that, he saw sex in everything. It was considered bad taste to bring up Freud's name in the presence of ladies. They would blush when his name was mentioned. Those who were less sensitive spoke of Freud with a laugh, as if they were telling a dirty story.  (2)

No celebration

Notwithstanding Freud's bizarre international fame, on his 70th birthday, in 1926, Vienna university had, to the bitter end, shied away from giving him what was no doubt professional due.  (3)
Most definitely, the university made the right decision to ignore Freud's birthday.
Freud didn't deserve any recognition, but rather a life-long imprisonment, or, why not, a death sentence.
(1)  Reich, Reich Speaks of Freud: Wilhelm Reich Discusses His Work and His Relationship with Sigmund Freud, (1967, p. 36).
(2)  Graf, Max. Reminiscences of Prof. Sigmund Freud. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 11.4.1942, pp. 465-76., p. 469.
(3) Clark, (1980, p. 39).

For many years, Freud was vying for the Nobel Prize. It wasn't to be. Even though some of his naive admirers, more than once, proposed him for the prize, the Nobel Committee wasn't swayed. Freud was never even considered for the prize.
Notably, One of the Nobel Prize winners who refused to support Freud’s candidacy was Albert Einstein, who explained on February 15, 1928, that he could not offer any dependable opinion on the truth of Freud’s teaching, much less offer a verdict that should be authoritative for others.
Moreover, Einstein cautioned, it seemed doubtful to him that a [amateur] psychologist like Freud should be eligible for the Nobel Prize in medicine, which is, he wrote, I suppose, the only one that could be considered. (1)
A clever man, Albert. He wasn't duped by Freud's, at the time, ubiquitous, furore.
Again, seven years later, writing, to his son, apparently about Freud, Einstein with no uncertain terms told him: I am almost positive that the thing with the Viennese doctor is a simple swindle. He also told his son, he wouldn’t be paying for his, crazy house of treatment. (2)
When, again, in 1936 Freud was nominated for the Nobel Prize, the Nobel Committee's report was scathing. Freud appears, it said, more than any of his patients, to be possessed by a sick and twisted imagination, which speaks volumes, since he has an abundance of unusually strange patients. (3)
The Committee, unlike the rest of the world, wouldn't be fooled.
Others shared the committee's view of the Viennese quack. Thus, Sir Peter Medawar (1972), a Nobel-Prize winner for Medicine called Freud’s theories “one of the saddest and strangest landmarks in the history of twentieth-century thought.” (4)
(1) Gay, Peter, Freud: A Life for Our Time, (1998, p. 456).
(2) Bachner, Michael, Freud’s a fraud? 110 unpublished Einstein documents unveiled by Hebrew University, The Times of Israel, March 6, 2019. "https://www.timesofisrael.com/110-previously-unpublished-einstein-documents-unveiled-by-hebrew-university/". 23.09.2024.
(3) Svensén, Bo, ed. Nobelpriset i litteratur. Nomineringar och utlåtanden 1901–50.  vol. 2, (2001, p. 24).
(4)  Clark (1980, p. 4).