The abundance of their produce again recommends other vines to us, and, in the first place, that known as the “helvennaca.”[1160] Of this vine there are two kinds; the larger, which is by some called the “long” helvennaca, and the smaller kind, which is known as the “emarcum,”[1161] not so prolific as the first, but producing a wine of more agreeable flavour; it is distinguished by its rounded leaf, but they are both of them of slender make. It is requisite to place forks beneath these vines for the support of their branches, as otherwise it would be quite impossible for them to support the weight of their produce: they receive nutriment from the breezes that blow from the sea, and foggy weather is injurious to them. There is not one among the vines that manifests a greater aversion to Italy, for there it becomes comparatively leafless and stunted, and soon decays, while the wine which it produces there will not keep beyond the summer: no vine, however, thrives better in a poor soil. Græcinus, who has copied from the works of Cornelius Celsus, gives it as his opinion that it is not that the nature of this vine is repugnant to the climate of Italy, but that it is the mode of cultivating it that is wrong, and the anxiety to force it to put forth its shoots; a mode of treatment, he thinks, which absorbs all its fertility, unless the soil in which it is planted happens to be remarkably rich, and by its support prevents it from being exhausted. It is said that this vine is never carbuncled,[1162] a remarkable quality, if, indeed, it really is the fact that there is any vine in existence that is exempt from the natural influences of the climate.