While working up my previous post on using intersection with cards in a Lenormand Grand Tableau that have a diagonal rather than right-angle relationship with one another, I touched on the subject of approaching knighting from an oblique perspective instead of the usual squared-off “chess-move” pattern. Here is a visual comparison of the two.
Diagonal knighting amounts to extending the four cards touching the corners of the focus card (here the Gentleman) not in a linear way as in intersection but in a skewed “L” shape, either one position out and two over or two out and one over. The technique is identical to the “knight’s move” of standard knighting, but is taken “on the diagonal” rather than “on the square.” When the focus card is in the center of the layout, this creates the opportunity for four diagonal knighting positions to supplement the maximum of eight standard ones. (Note that off-center focus cards will produce a different number of both).
I call these positions “supplemental” because they all land adjacent to one of the usual knighting locations: before, after, above or below (the last two of which only occur when the focus card is near the top or bottom of the tableau). In a discussion with Lenormand author Andy Boroveshengra on one of the cartomancy forums, he mentioned that the four diagonal cards touching the focus card form a kind of boundary that indicates “where the querent stands” at the moment: think “X marks the spot.” While considering an extension of these cards in a diagonal line away from the “hub” of the array, I realized that this boundary is reinforced by the fact that two of the standard knighting positions bracket each of the diagonal cards, visually “pinching off” their movement away from the center. To progress, the line of exit has to “thread the needle” between the corners of the two knighting cards that form part of a perimeter of “sentinels.” Successfully negotiating this gap liberates the oblique chain from the “gravity well” of the hub and bending it takes it out of the “line-of-sight.” The upshot is that the diagonal knights will operate in the shadow of the normal ones as a kind of “hidden agenda.”
The suggestion here is that diagonal knighting in these cases pulls the outbound movement of obliquity “around the corner,” with either a left-hand or right-hand “spin” on the flow. When that pull takes the diagonal knight behind the “sentinel” knight, it suggests “pre-conditioning,” or some extenuating factor that pre-existed the emergence of the common knight on the scene. When the supplemental knight lands ahead of its regular counterpart, there is a “post-conditioning” emphasis by which the standard knight’s influence may be subject to a subtle retrenching. A supplemental card above the normal knight “tops off” its influence with novel insights and one below it narrows and concentrates its field of view in unique ways. In all four cases, the emphasis is on something subliminal that is brought to bear on the main knight’s overt expression. Since Andy also mentioned that (at least in his practice) conventional knighting doesn’t create a direct combination between the two cards in the array, instead providing an indirect convergence of influences, adding an amplifying card to each regular knighting position offers further inflection and nuance to its meaning. If conventional knighting is to be taken with a grain of salt, diagonal knighting could be seen as a gob-stopping sodium-chloride boulder. I’m not asking you to swallow it whole, of course. Just nibble on it a bit.