There are yet persons, at least at the time this was written not quite Methusalahs, who read the _Morte d'Arthur_ before the _Idylls_ appeared and who have never allowed even the _Idylls_ to overlay their original idea of the most perfect and most gentle of knights.
It is probable indeed that Malory invented little or nothing in the various situations, by which the character of Lancelot, and the history of his fatal love, are evolved.

We know in most cases that this is so.
It is possible, too, that at first (probably because the possibilities had not dawned on him, as it has been admitted they never did very consciously) he has not made the most of the introduction of lover and lady.

But when the interest becomes concentrated, as in the various passages of Guinevere's wrath with her lover and their consequences, or in the final series of catastrophes, he is fully equal to the occasion.
We _know_--this time to his credit--how he has improved, in the act of borrowing them, the earlier verse-pictures of the final parting of the lovers, and there are many other episodes and juxtapositions of which as much may be said.

That except as to Lancelot's remorse (which after all is the great point) there is not much actual talk about motive and sentiment is nothing; or nothing but the condition of the time.

The important point is that, as the electricians say, "the house is wired" for the actual installation of character-novelling.