Lynn Hunt argues that epistolary novels sparked a rise in empathy across social divisions but one may argue that the use of the word empathy is a bit of stretch. Empathy speaks to being able to feel or imagine what another may be going through and if one truly feels and understands then this speaks to a shift in mindset. If the ruling class truly empathized with the characters in these epistolary novels then it would have affected their actions. While I can agree that epistolary novels can give insight to a perspective one may not be able to experience in their own lives and this can spark some feelings of compassion but where is the resolve? What actions are evoked from this compassion? I do agree that some compassionate words or feelings may be shared but I wouldn't consider it true empathy. Why would the rich ruling class change their actions because of reading a novel? If so why has history continuously shown the lower class being at the hands of the ruling class? To me it seems like they still consider their interests over others. Empathy speaks to recognition of shared experiences which would lead to action or movement, not placing ones interest over the other.
Saying that "reading these novels created a sense of equality" also seems like a stretch to me. Equality is not just emotions, equality means action. True equality cannot be achieved through sorrow for ones tragedy. How does knowledge of this pity help to better ones life? I do not neglect that epistolary novels may have inspired a change in thought among some but I wouldn't say it effected empathy or equality.