This idea _seems_ to be the central thesis of Bloom's recent book "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human." I say "seems," because, frankly, Bloom barely touches on it in his text--he kind of flirts around with the idea, but he makes no real argument, just praise and hyperbole and more praise for what a genius Shakespeare was. I'm not even really sure what he means by the statement--we weren't really human beings until Shakespeare, by virtue of his plays, taught us all how to be human? So, for example, Augustus Caesar and Saint Augustine weren't complete humans? Tribal people in New Guinea or the Amazon Basin who have never read Hamlet aren't properly considered "humans?" Only by partaking of the sacrement of the First Folio do you get into the club? This is outside the scope of literary criticism and bordering on religion.
What Shakespeare did, and I'll always love him for this, was bring a depth of understanding to the human condition, character, and psychology, that was far deeper and more powerful, and expressed more beautifully, than anyone before him in English Literature...and maybe, anyone after him. No sphere of human activity, and no kind of human emotion was outside his interest. He gave us greed and generosity, nobility and vileness, pure love and pure hate...and, often, all in the same person at once. It is those baffling blends of the angelic and the demonic that make characters like Shylock, Falstaff, Hamlet, Prince Hal, and the rest so compelling to us four hundred years later.
They are amazing works of art. But as for "inventing the human?" No. Shakespeare didn't invent much of anything. As he said himself, the purpose of art is to "hold the mirror up to nature." He didn't create humanity--he showed it to us.