AUTHOR’S NOTE: I recently commented online regarding a handful of Lenromand readings being offered for second opinions that sent me down this particular rabbit hole.

In astrology there is the concept of “planets in containment,” which examines the significance of a planet that sits between the zodiacal locations of two other planets without regard for whether there are any formal aspects between the three. In tarot, the technique of Elemental Dignities offers a similar perspective, raising or lowering the potency of the middle card according to the nature of its two companions. In Lenormand, three cards in sequence are typically read as a triplet, but it is usually in series with the central card describing the one before and modifying the one after. Mirroring of the two outside cards is also used, but it jumps over the middle card.

I’ve been thinking that the two bounding cards of a triplet can “contain” or “capture” the middle card in a way that elevates its prominence, effectively making it the “mini-theme” of the triplet within the overall reading. Here are three examples. (This is also a nice comparison of three deck styles, the Grand Tableau with its antique beige background (Lo Scarabeo), the Blue Owl (Konigsfurt-Urania) and the Piatnik (Ferd. Piatnik & Sons).

In the first example, Ship + Fish + Ring, the advice was to seek (Ship as “enterprise”) a connection (Ring mirroring Ship) with an abundant resource (Fish between them).

The second example, Bear + Mountain + Storks, shows that a significant obstacle (Mountain) stands in the way of a powerful impulse (Bear) for change (Storks). All the desire in the world won’t budge that stubborn promontory, so another path must be found (in my comments I suggested that the Bear has to grow wings, but the serious goal of being “light on one’s feet” and not too single-minded was the underlying theme).

The third example, Mice + Birds + Mountain, could be read as a conversation (Birds) being overtaken by anxieties (Mice) and confusion (Clouds).

In each case, the middle card is the subject of the sentence fragment and the other cards add situational commentary. In the first example, the “abundant resource” implied by the Fish is the objective and the other two cards show the means to that end; in the second the Mountain looms large as the “stopper” in the scenario; and in the third it is the conversation that instigates the difficulties. In a five-card line there will be four such “containments,” with a shifting emphasis offered by shared cards. This creates a kind of “moving tableau” that is not so much progressively linear as “scene-based,” for lack of a better description, with one scene segueing into the next via the shared cards. In these instances it is possible to introduce some mirroring into the scenic vignettes.

Here is a five-card line from my own practice to demonstrate these ideas. The focus card (Dog) participates in all of the triplets, making it the common link that ties the narrative “acts” together.

The first triplet is Fox + Heart + Dog. There appears to be a contest for the affections of the querent between an honest type (Dog) and a less savory character (Fox). The alert Dog appears to be well aware that the Fox intends to try outmaneuvering him.

The second triplet is Heart + Dog + Bouquet, suggesting that the more honorable contender will try to “outbid” his rival by flattering the querent with displays of affection.

The third triplet is Dog + Bouquet + Letter. This could mean a couple of things: because the Letter mirrors the Fox, the object of their mutual affection may receive a “poison-pen” message from the Fox attempting to discredit the Dog, who will not have seen it coming. The other possibility is that all the Dog will get for his overtures is a “thank-you” note. The querent will be touched by the gesture (Heart mirrors Bouquet) but wants to keep the relationship a formal one (in other words, Letter and not Ring).

A fourth triplet can be formed by correlating the two end cards with the middle card. Here the result is Fox + Dog + Letter, and the implication is that the pair will try to outdo one another in writing “love letters” (or I suppose it would be texts).