Paeanius's translation of Eutropius's work, specifically his "Breviarium Historiae Romanae," has faced several criticisms over the centuries. Here are some of the major points often noted by scholars:

1. Literal Translation Issues: Paeanius's translation is often criticized for being too literal. While this might preserve the meaning closely to the original, it sometimes results in awkward or cumbersome Greek that can be difficult to read and follow. This approach can obscure the nuances present in the original Latin of Eutropius.

2. Lack of Stylistic Elegance: Critics argue that Paeanius's translation lacks the stylistic elegance that could have been achieved had the translator opted for a more interpretive approach. Eutropius's work has its stylistic merits, and a too-literal translation may fail to convey these effectively in Greek.

3. Inconsistencies in Terminology: There are instances where Paeanius might have been inconsistent in translating particular terms, leading to confusion or misinterpretations about specific historical contexts or concepts presented by Eutropius.

4. Cultural and Historical Misinterpretations: Translating ancient texts across cultures and historical contexts can lead to misinterpretation of terms that hold significant cultural or historical connotations. Paeanius's translation has been noted for occasional misalignments with the subtle cultural meanings present in the original text.

5. Loss of Subtle References: Eutropius's Latin text contains subtle historical references that sometimes get lost in translation. Paeanius's version may not adequately capture these nuances, potentially affecting the reader's understanding of certain passages.

6. Didactic Failures: Some scholars have noted that parts of the translation fail to maintain the didactic intentions of Eutropius, who aimed to create a concise and instructive history for his audience.

For further insights, it could be useful to refer to scholarly articles that discuss the comparative analysis of Latin-to-Greek translations in the late antiquity period or specific critiques on the translation techniques of Paeanius.

If you are interested in more in-depth analysis or specific examples of these criticisms, I would recommend consulting academic resources or journals that focus on classical studies or translation critiques.