 In his question commentary on Aristotle’s De anima I, Brito asks about the subject matter of the science of the soul (for Brito’s psychology, see De Boer 2012, 2013). With respect to this question, earlier scholars usually take one of two main opposing positions: the subject matter of psychology is either simply the soul, or it is the body that has a soul, i.e., the animate body. Brito opts for the second position: the subject matter of the science of the soul is the animate body, with an emphasis on its being animated. Two arguments are given to support his position: the science of the soul studies the operations and features specifically related to the animate body’s having a soul (growth, nutrition, sensation, and understanding). Hence, its subject matter ought to be the possessor of those operations and features—the animate body. Accordingly, this science does not study the soul, that which makes the animate body animate, without any consideration of its relation to the body; rather, it studies the entire composite of body and soul, and more specifically, the body that has a soul (QDA-2012-I: 276). Therefore, the science of the soul approaches the soul not as an entity totally detached from the body it animates, but rather as the cause of the set of operations and features that separate living bodies from inanimate ones.