Lenormand at the Crossroads
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Despite the suggestive title, this essay is not a commentary on the “state of the art.” It merely describes a creative way of using Lenormand for decision-making.
I often encounter the opinion that reading “line” spreads of any length with the Lenormand cards is the least effective way to approach a complex question because it doesn’t offer a broad enough perspective for a comprehensive answer. Generally, the nine-card “box” is favored as the perfect mode of inquiry (topped only by the Grand Tableau for even more expansive readings), but the five-card “cross” also has much to recommend it since it provides two countervailing trains of thought, one projecting horizontally and the other intersecting “on the vertical.”
Here I’m proposing to use it as a decision-making tool when two choices are involved by placing the “Crossroads” card at the center of the array as the general “significator” or topic card and then dealing five more narrative cards around and on top of it. (My personal method is to lay the middle card first to give it prominence as the circumstantial crux of the matter, then the two horizontal cards left-to-right, followed by the two vertical cards top-to-bottom.) Ignore the reversed card in the photo; it was my error since I don’t use reversals with Lenormand.
In a previous essay on the subject (linked in its entirety below) I made the following observations:
“The ideal form of the line spread contains an odd number of cards with a central card that serves as the focus of the reading. This card is acted upon by the cards preceding it, and in turn acts upon those following it in a kind of ‘processional’ arc. Introducing a vertical axis to the array that also passes through the middle card can provide an alternative outlook on the main thrust of the story-line. Think of it as a sidelong view of the situation that offers the possibility of taking a different tack in the matter. Since it still engages the focus card, it can’t deviate too far from the script. The challenge for the reader is to thoughtfully integrate any pronounced divergence into the flow of the reading in a way that successfully entrains the offsetting energy it delivers.”
Although in my previous post I noted that there is no “dominant outcome statement” in this arrangement but rather a coordinated outlook centered on the focus card, here I’m suggesting that the divergent arms of the cross can be examined to show the possible consequences of making either of two opposing choices in the matter: the horizontal row is traditionally read from left-to-right while the vertical column proceeds from top to bottom, with the central “covering” card common to both revealing where they share a situational “turning point” (the outer climax of the inner quandary implied by the Crossroads) from which separate paths to closure evolve. (The first card in each series would convey pre-existing conditions underlying the need to choose in that particular way.) In one case the “outcome” is displayed by the card at the far right, and in the other it appears as the card at the bottom, both of which should be interpreted as competing conclusions in the decision-making scenario. If some action must be taken, the outcome card that offers the most encouraging solution to the pivotal crisis symbolized by Card #1 should be considered the best path to explore.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on December 26, 2023.
