If you accept that the precocious most eloquent poet genius Shakespeare in his 16th year of life (1579) was able to read and speak fluently greek, one is asking why Shakespeare needed to fall back literally "word by word" on a foreign translation of Thomas North (similar to the question, why Shakespeare, reading fluently french, needed John Florios french translation of Montaigne "Essayes" e.g. for The Tempest (->Blog-195).
You may also note, that North’s Plutarch translation 1579, printed by Thomas Vautrollier (His apprentice Richard Field after Vautrolliers death maried 1589 Vautrollier‘s widow) exhibits the same title emblems ("Anchor of hope") like Shakespeare’s „Firstlings „Venus und Adonis(1593)“ and „Lucrece(1594)“ and William Cecil also had Vautrollier as a printer 1588 and later Richard Field („The copie of a letter sent out of England to Don Bernardin Mendoza declaring the state of England.“) There seem to be tight connections between North, Shakespeare and Cecil.
Why even after centuries Shakespeare experts cannot explain so many of such strange connections: it must be the result of a fatal „academic“ failure to develop a coherent Shakespeare authorship theory and to admit any serious academic authorship research. The reason in turn for this failure, as Prof.Bates highly interesting and entertaining lectures of Shakespeare and Stratford tell us, is (I quote Bate) “that Shakespeare did become a sort of secular God, his works became like a kind of wholy scripture…the birthplace a shrine“. Academia has respected the Third Commandment - Do not misuse God's name. Do not begin any authorship research about a „false“ Shakespeare God!