Father Richard Price, one of the great Catholic scholars of our time, describes St Dioscorus as a 'second Athanasius'.
Much non-OO writing about the OO tradition has unfortunately been filled with error and a lack of understanding. It seems to me that it is necessary to ask on what foundation of knowledge anyone writes about St Dioscorus. If it is only on the basis of hearsay, of repeating what others have said, then it does not seem to me that such writings are of much value.
I think that I know most of the writings and words available to us from St Dioscorus, I am presently translating his life. He does not appear to me to be a thug, or to have been anything more than the honourable and principles man that the OO have always understood and remembered him to be. Much indeed, of which he is accused, patently never happened.
We know, for instance, that he was aware that by going to Chalcedon he was going to his doom, but he went anyhow. And when deserted by all he sat alone rather than become a traitor to himself like Juvenal. It is not surprising that he has been described as being a new Elijah standing before the prophets of Baal. (I don't mean that so much in criticism of his opponents, but rather in the sense of his principled courage). We know that the Emperor and Empress privately offered him all manner of inducements to abandon his position, but he refused.
We know, for instance, that Flavian was not killed at Chalcedon, and that he was ending letters many months later. Indeed the great Church historian, Henry Chadwick, believes that he was held in the Imperial palace after Anatolius had replaced him, and he was quietly removed by Marcian and Pulcheria when he had served his purpose.
I have not been able to find anything that makes me critical of him.