Madness

As Socrates catches himself making a "foolish and close to impious speech" for the sake of rhetorical prowess, and begins the speech in argument for the one in love (philosophical love), he still permits the idea of love being a sort of madness, agreed upon early in the dialogue, and says "the best things we have come from madness, when it is given as a gift of the god. (Does Socrates think there is any kind of madness that is not a gift from the god?) He proceeds to speak of four kinds of madness, all with positive connotations. The first one being prophets, the second kind I am unsure of what he is referring to (244E), perhaps priests (?), the third poets and musicians, and the fourth being love, which must be proven to be provided "by the gods to ensure our greatest fortune." Why provided by the gods? Because only madness provided by the gods provides good fortune (if there is any other kind of madness)? Though unsure of how the word madness translates and it is an ambigious term to begin with, it is interesting to find these positions attributed to madness. When Socrates speaks of madness it appears he means the one influenced is not entirely in control of one's actions, as in the prophet and poet are mediums through which the gods create positive (as in extended) imprints on the human world, for the benefit of humans. When madness is involved, is there a motive, and is the motive always the same? If love is seen as a madness, and the lover is a medium for the gods, the motive seems to be to have the lover recognize the Form of Beauty, and aspire towards the realm of Forms, the soul, and unite with its origin/source; which could be argued (purpose of the idea of reincarnation/transcending to return) is the aim of all creation, and the god (s) itself. Could the other forms of madness be seen to have the same motive?