his person and works attracted all sorts of polarized opinions. up to the 1930s, he was regarded generally positively by m.k. lyubavskiy, v.i. picheto, f.f. turuk, d.i. dovgyallo and others. beginning in the 1930s, he fell under stigmatizing critique and denunciation as a scientist by s.ya. vol'fson, v.m. pertsev, v.k. shcherbakov and others. in the 1940s—1970s, comparatively "safe to touch" parts of his works (ethnographical, archeological, archeographical) were being explored and built upon by v.k. bandarchyk, m.f. pilipyenka, i.u. chakvin, m.m. ulashchyk, l.v. alyaksyeyew). historical part of his work remained visible as scarce references up to the mid-1980s. attempts at estimating him as a historian were made in monographies of u.m. mikhnyuk, z.yu. kapyski, v.u. chapko. in the 1990s, there appeared works researching the generalised scientific position of dovnar-zapol'skiy (s.i. mikhal'chanka), the evolution of historical concept (dz.u. karaw, m.f. shumyeyka).