Divine madness — the ancient Greek mania theia — occupies a singular and contested position in the depth-psychological corpus. Rooted in Plato’s Phaedrus, where Socrates distinguishes four species of heaven-sent madness (prophetic, telestic, poetic, and erotic), the concept migrates through Neoplatonism, Renaissance humanism, and Romantic philosophy before arriving, transformed, in twentieth-century depth psychology. The corpus registers two broad orientations in tension. The first — represented most forcefully by Jung’s Red Book annotations, Otto’s phenomenology of Dionysus, Hillman’s archetypal psychology, and Moore’s recovery of Ficino — treats divine madness as a genuine, potentially beneficent incursion of transpersonal energy into ego-organized consciousness: disruptive, yes, but generative of insight, prophetic speech, and soul-depth. The second orientation, present in clinical voices from Abraham and Bleuler through Neumann, reads mania as pathological inflation — the ego’s catastrophic identification with spiritual contents it cannot metabolize. Between these poles, Wilhelm and Jung together articulate the crucial phenomenological distinction: whether one calls a state ‘mania’ or ‘god’ is not a matter of indifference but of the soul’s orientation toward what possesses it. The term thus functions in the library as both a diagnostic category and a sacred one, and the irreducible tension between those registers is precisely what makes it indispensable.