> is there any reason, at this far remove, to be publishing "translated" versions of Shakespeare?

I would say emphatically not (as you expected, right?!) The occasional struggle with unfamiliarity can be a boon to enrich our understanding of modern usage and abusage. It also allows us to let the meaning go and just hear the sheer poetry of his soundscape (especially when rendered in the flesh rather than internalised by our reading). For any reading this who didn't bother to click through the link to the good little review/article in The Economist, let me provide their closing words here:

Of course there's an argument for clarity; but accessible Shakespeare in modern translation may bury as much as 16th-century Shakespeare does. So, when foxed and flummoxed, there's nothing for it but this excellent glossary. A question for readers: does “knowing your onions” refer to C.T.? If so, the modern gloss will have to be “knowing your Crystals”. ibid