With a cheerfulness that only a lack of foresight can explain, I began by asking the experts for their contributions to this topic. Such an avalanche of reprints poured in that their mere inclusion in a reference list would swallow the space allotted. Even worse, virtually any factor that might contribute to this multifaceted disorder of regulation apparently found not only its convincing support but also its refutation in this mountain of scientific accomplishment. Then total surrender appeared to be the sensible way out, helped by a face-saving reference to William Harvey’s only pessimistic statement in De Motu Cordis (1628):“I found it so truly difficult that I almost believed with Fracastorius that it was to be understood by God alone.” On second thought, however, it seemed more honorable to make an attempt, particularly since it could hardly make controversies much worse. An easy start was possible at least by summing up the few points where authorities do agree, but unfortunately points of disagreement are in the overwhelming majority. To elucidate this borders on the impossible, and to venture some sort of integrated concept is certainly to stick one’s head into a hornets’ nest. It therefore seems proper here to concur with another remarkable old-timer, Martin Luther. On facing the stern congregation of church authorities in Worms in 1521 to answer for his heretic theses, he concluded:“Here I stand, and cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” The frustrated reader may find solace in the wealth of other surveys covering hypertension from various angles (67, 94, 95, 272, 276, 282, 449, 450,