Pupil of professors Golubovskiy, Ikonnikov, and especially V.B. Antonovich, he sought to emulate the combination of scientific and educational activities, as manifested by
P. Shafarik,
V. Karajic, and
N.I. Kostomarov. He denounced the view of Belarusians as being devoid of nationality, and was a decided promoter and supporter of Belarusian national revival in the beginning of the 20th century. Dovnar-Zapol'skiy greeted the emergence of the "strictly objective and scientific" trend in Belarusian historical and ethnographical research. He showed general sympathy with
Marxist theory but wasn't awed by it.
Historical concepts Dovnar-Zapol'skiy promoted the concept of primacy of the history of people over the history of states and considered
ethnography and economics to be highly important, if not chief factors, in studying the history of society. As part of his research into
Belarusian history, he postulated the existence of Belarusian nationality with its own history, distinct ethnographical features, rich folk culture, with Belarusian language being heir of the speech of the
Krivichi and the
Dregovichs. He supported "colonisational theory" of emergence of state in Belarus, and considered Krivichi and Dregovichs largely to be isolated from Ancient
Rus' state and therefore evolving differently. Dovnar-Zapol'skiy also postulated the absence of ethnographical unity in Ancient Rus' state, with external political and military affairs being the only binding factors in it. He viewed the creation of
Great Duchy of Lithuania and Rus' in the 13th century as
partially peacefully created and mutually beneficial union between the princes of weakened Rus' and militant Lithuanian princes. He also considered both the
Lublin Union and
Church Union to have been negative factors in Belarusian history, claiming they promote religious intolerance. He also disapproved of the incorporation of Belarusian land into Russia after the
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth partitions. Generally, he considered "two evils" to have influenced Belarusian history negatively: the Polish "
szlachta aristocratical republic" and the Russian "
boyar oligarchy". He disapproved of both, as these excluded
demos, being therefore perilous to the Belarusian people who are "highly democratic in their historical and folk traditions". Later in the 1920s, the historian further emphasised the economical factor in history and the significance of
class struggle in the history of the Great Duchy. ==Viewed by others==