If but as well I other accents borrow, that can my speech defuse, my good intent may carry through itself to that full issue for which I raz'd my likeliness. Now, banished Kent, if thou canst serve where thou dost stand condemn'd, so may it come, thy master, whom thou lov'st, shall find thee full of labours
Kent returns after being banished - proving his loyalty and commitment working as a subject to the king
Kent enters kingdom
what dost thou profess? what would'st thou with us?
I do profess to be no less than I seem; to serve him truly that wil put me in trust; to love him that is honest; to converse with him that is wise, and says little; to fear judgement; to fight when I cannot choose; and to eat no fish
if thou be'st as poor for a subject as he is for a king, thou art poor enough. what would'st thou?
what art thou?
a very honest- hearted fellow and as poor as the king
At this point you'll notice Lear limits his relation to Kent while asserting his human nature, whilst Kent maintains the masochistic relation to Lear which is currently feeding his sadistic desires
who would'st thou serve?
dost thou know me, fellow?
No sir; but you have that in your countenance which I would fain call master.
follow me; thou shalt serve me; if I like thee no worse after dinner I will not part from thee yet
Lear and Kent exit - the relationship between Lear and Kent is sadomasochistic. Kent clearly continuous to act as an object in relation to Lear's transcendent nature. Within the relationship Kent allows Lear to treat him as an object without defences, Lear prescribes Kent with meaning making him the sadist and Kent the masochist.