I'd say as early as you like. My oldest was introduced around age 4 or 5. We have an old Tales from Shakespeare; more recently Usborne has published Stories from Shakespeare, where the stories are in prose; there are illustrations; and there are brief synopsis of all his works in the back. The language is fresh without being slangy, too. As a result of this book, my son had a favorite by the time he was 6: Taming of the Shrew.

Now that he's older, he's capable of understanding the plays as written. But the fact is that he understood the plots, subplots (up to his maturity level), high points, gags, and quite a lot of the culture at an age when most kids are either stuck on Captain Underpants or struggling to read anything at all. And as a result he's always understood allusions to Shakespeare.

My next child is 9 and has just discovered these books. I don't doubt she'll quickly follow in his footsteps.
Permalink | Report

I am in favor of introducing Shakespeare at an early age in the original language. It is much easier to learn language at an early age, the brain is evidently set up to do so. That way a better knowledge and appreciation will be learned without the struggle most teens and older face when encountering older literature.
Permalink | Report

I guess not all kids are the same, and not all ways of introducing Shakespeare are the same. I'm in no position to know about simplified or cartoon versions of Shakespeare, what ages those work for, of what value they have compared to the real thing. So I can only answer about the reading, watching, studying the actual plays.

My first encounter with Shakespeare was aged maybe ten or eleven. I picked up my dad's copy of Hamlet, knowing that is what supposed to be this amazing thing, read a couple of pages, and gave up. I couldn't see the point of it, didn't understand it, and was put off Shakespreare for a number of years.

My next two encounters were I think around age 13. We did Macbeth in class, and it was wonderful. Also round about that time, the BBC Shakespeare series started coming out, and there was a lot of fuss about it. At that age, of course that tale of young lovers, Romeo and Juliet, sounded appealing, I checked it out and was wowed. As the other productions in the series came out, I watched quite a few. Some still didn't do it for me, but others blew my mind.

I can't speak about the population in general, but from people that I know who've come to love Shakespeare, it's been a similar story of discovering it in their early or mid teens.

If I had kids, I don't think I would try to introduce them to it any younger than that, unless they showed a special interest. Most of the plays deal with themes that a young child can't get much out of anyway. Young kids can get as much out Star Trek or Doctor Who as they would out of a dumbed-down version of Shakespeare. Why show them a kiddy version of The Tempest when you can show them Star Wars or give them The Hobbit to read?

Also I guess I'm not in general a fan of trying to steer kids into being interested in what I think they should be interested in. More in helping them develop in whatever diirection seems to resonate with them.

Though I don't have kids of my own, I do have nieces and nephews. They're all quite young, but you can see some developing an interest in music and dance, others in sports, or technology. I wouldn't try to push literature in general at them, let alone any specific writer, just because I love it. Maybe give them a little taste, and see if they want more.
Permalink | Report

By the time I was introduced to Shakespeare, I had already read the King James Version of the Bible a couple of times, so I didn't have that much trouble catching on to the language. My interest was historical. I enjoyed comparing the language of that time to today vernacular, and coming to understand meanings of those parts of Shakespeare that were difficult. So what I remember about Romeo and Juliet was my teacher explaining that Juliet was not wondering where Romeo was, but rather she was musing on the unfortunate coincidence that he was a member of a family that was feuding with hers.
Other than that, to be honest, I generally can't stand Shakespeare because I dislike most of his characters. Committing suicide as a result of a coincidence? Give me a break. And Hamlet! What a whiner! Macbeth is the only story that's half way enjoyable.
I was more sympathetic to West Side Story.
So I never introduced my children to Shakespeare, but my eldest son found him as a result of his interest in drama.
Permalink | Report

I remember studying Shakespeare as early as 5th or 6th grade, wherein we actually performed an abridged and slightly simplified version of Julius Caesar on stage for our parents. I got to stab Ceasar as Casca, something I doubt 6th graders would get to experience today.

I also vividly remember watching the movie version of Romeo and Juliet. I say "vividly" mainly because one of the scenes contained some uncensored nudity that caught our teacher off guard. It was the talk of the classroom for months. Oh, and we read through the entire play too.

These two experiences alone taught me that there was a lot more to what most folks see as "archaic" or "stuffy".

I think, having experienced Shakespeare at such an "early" stage in my education helped define who I am as a communicator today, and definitely contributed to me being characterized as "well-read" at a very early age. By the time I left high school, I had read every one of his "major" plays, seen most of them acted out in one form or another, and was completely prepared for college-level English Lit, to the point where the subject matter was comfortable, and I was able to speak with authority on most things my classmates were seeing for the first time.
Source(s):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125480/

Permalink | Report