Popper does not figure largely in Soviet philosophy but each of the major reference works accords him an article. The present paper draws also on a variety of sources from the period 1958-1975.1 The Philosophical Encyclopedia does not mention Popper under 'Histori cism' but does include The Poverty of Historicism in the bibliography to this entry. The substantial article by Narskij on 'Neopositivism' mentions Popper twice: he is said to have amplified or expanded the principle of verification, which hardly seems an adequate description of the supplanting of verifiability by falsifiability. Inadequate though this may be, it is not a view confined to Soviet scholars: Popper points out that until about 1959 "philosophers in England and America . . . seem to have taken me for a logical positivist or at best for a dissenting logical positivist who replaced verifiability by falsifi ability".2 Narskij also notes, without rancour, that Popper has tried to show that Marxism is not a science but a variant of religious faith. The entry under 'Popper' extends to about a column and a half: this is slightly longer than the entry on Wittgenstein but markedly shorter than that on Carnap. This main entry by I. Dobronravov is well-informed and makes reference to Popper's major works, including Poverty and The Open Society which are the most politically sensitive. Dobronravov regards Popper as having been an active member of the Vienna Circle (he is not mentioned under this entry in the Encyclopedia) and states that he is a representative of logical positivism "although he adopts a critical attitude towards a number of its basic positions". In the light of Magee's opinion that Logik der Forschung "contains the chief of what have since become the generally accepted arguments against logical positivism"3 this is an understatement yet it remains as clear a statement as any of a diffi culty which Soviet critics are unable to resolve: they are reluctant to accept that a philosopher can stand on his own and consequently make vigorous efforts to attach him to a movement or a school. They also have difficulty in understanding collaboration between scholars of opposing views: the Marxist preoccupation with the dialectic and class struggle is carried into the field of