He decides which daughter he would most want to live with based on how many knights they will allow him to keep. By so basely equating love and quantity, love and material things, the audience feels dearly how much Lear is still missing the point. One almost wonders if the methods through which Goneril and Regan expressed to Lear their love in Act I was based somewhat on the way they had been taught to love by their father. We must conclude, however, that love was not their intention, but manipulation. We are given even greater notice of their contrast with Cordelia as we hear of Kent's letter from her.
Time is left vague in the play purposely.
We are not meant to question how it is Cordelia knew how to find Kent, nor how she knew he was in disguise when it had been about a day, it seems, since he had arrived to Lear in disguise. Instead, recognize these events as part of the sequence of patterned movement in the parable. Kent is her agent on the front, seeing more clearly through his disguise than Lear has yet been able to in broad daylight. It is intriguing to consider Kent in his disguise along with the disguise Edgar takes on as Tom the beggar and to think about them in the context of clothing within the play. One of the best speeches Lear makes in the play concerns the topic of need.