In The Genesis-4 of the Bible, that is also a book of metaphors, the author, Moses, describes the history of two brothers, Abel, a shepherd of flocks and Cain, a farmer, that offer to God the fruits of their labor, that the Creator receives, however preferring those of Abel and less of Cain, most likely because Abel offered the best lambs, whereas Cain was not proved equally generous. Cain, the older, not being able to pour on God his anger got angry to his brother and he killed him, but God delivered him from the revenge of others men and Cain became builder of a town.

The narration has offered in the centuries to biblicists, philologists and theologians a ground  of analysis to disclose private and symbolic meanings of the biblical description. But it would be reductive and even thick to think that God would prefer the pastoral-farming to the agriculture. God does not play to be an economist, He does not be the regulator of the business fields, which are only human choices. But, what the biblicist wishes to transmit, is a message, that goes beyond the single domestic events, that is: Cain built a town. In the plan not always scrutable  of the Providence, also a fratricide can be able to do some positive acts. But why just a town? For the semi-nomadic people of Israel would not have been more coherent to built a large flock? The fold is a big autarkic view. If all are shepherds the economic trading does not born. What the shepherd A swaps with the shepherd B? A sheep to another sheep? For a plurality of business  it is necessary a social organization of work and that is conceivable only out of the fold: in a town. Maybe that explains the reason why God saves Cain by the revenge of other men: to be builder of a town and initiator of a society organized under social economic activities. That clears also saying that we are sons of Cain, not the only living after Adam and Eve, but  doing in an already pre-existing or coexistent society. If Cain would be the one, by who could he fear the revenge from that God defends him? But Cain stays the prototype of a brotherly relation, that finishes in the killing and that will have a famous continuation in the myth of the foundation of  Rome. Romulus kills the brother Remus and builds Rome. We can doubt that the Romans would know the Bible and would think up the matter of the two wolf men with independence. But it is sweeping that the outlet is equal.   

Also for this fact the Bible unfolds a book of meanings, that exceed the literality of its expressions and pessimists have an easy time to think that the society begins because homo [is] homini lupus, like Hobbes centuries later will says for explain the coming of the Leviathan, recovering a saying the Asinara o f Plautus.

 But we could also develop different thoughts. Who lives in the sheepfold or in the pastures where the space seems to have not borders, dominated by the light and only by the sounds produced, by nature and by cowbell, he does not fear the solitude, because he is satisfied by the freedom and, so the freedom has a price, the shepherd reveals at the end a brave man. Cain is not the same and he chooses the society, that is the town, that however claims rules and restrictions of the personal freedom. From that the auctoritas and allure and the need of the power. Cain is afraid, he builds the town and, so he is the founder, he lays claim the power. So it is for the foundation of Rome: Romulus would not so much found Rome but a society of which becomes the chief. In fact to be a governor it is necessary to dispose a society, that is a set of individuals and, if there is not, it is necessary to create it.

The society is started from the killing, which is  lack of courage, nothing Aristotelian thesis  that man is a social animal. The know-all of the antiquity had not study man  enough although having as example Alexander the Great. Without to minimize the irrefutable value of the great philosopher, for same aspects Aristotle was a superficial person, like shows the fact that, being a naturalist, he declared that women have less teeth than men:  an inexcusable opinion of a man who married twice and probably he was a regular visitor of extramarital alcoves. 

So, if we abandon the optimistic Aristotelian thesis and specially the absolute authoritativeness of the ipse dixit, ascribed to him long thousand years by his admirers, the realistic panel of the progeny of Cain is anything but exciting, with which it is not admissible to imagine a society founded by Abel, because the history is not done by the if. The society is that it is apart its founder. That could also explain the necessity of a redemption realized by Christ. 

As far as the builder of towns: a Cain values another.

 (Translation by Giulia Bonazza)