A Fresh Look at 'The Good Old Days'

     For any of you who may not know, The Oldest House in Laceyville, PA was built in 1781. While many of us think of that time as a more gently-paced and gracious existence, I've been reading quite a bit lately about the late 18th and early 19th century and I'm beginning to think that perhaps our perception is not completely accurate.

     The decade or so before the turn of the 19th century set this country as well as many others on an ever quickening road to progress, development, and what we view today as modern life. To us, life in 1781, or even in 1795 when my book, A RIVER IN TIME takes place, seems very old fashioned: candles and oil lamps, no running water, corsets!, no refrigerators, no electricity, no power tools or appliances. But many things we think of as essential elements of modern life already existed then, and more were to come, very quickly.

    The year Dr. William Hooker Smith built The Oldest House,  steam piston engines, seed drills, tuning forks, diving bells, fire extinguishers, mercury thermometers, even primitive electrical capacitors like Leyden Jars (invented in 1745) were in existence. The spinning jenny was invented in 1767 and a spinning frame the following year. Both of these things would revolutionize the production of material and set the stage for the importance of cotton farming in the southern U.S. Although in 1781 Dr. Smith’s wife Margery probably had a maid or two who helped her spin wool, flax and hemp, cloth and thread production was rapidly morphing from a ‘cottage’ industry to one that could make or break a country’s economy.

     By the time Dr. Smith was living in The Oldest House, the electric telegraph had been invented. Ben Franklin had invented bifocal glasses, and maybe Dr. Smith wore a pair! Cummings had invented a flush toilet although they weren’t in common use. Parachutes and hot air balloons had been invented, too, although initially these were perceived as entertainment and slightly crazy diversions, and not recognized as the precursors to air travel.

     By the time Dr. Smith's son sold the House, and the 1791 addition was added (the 'leanter'), the steamboat and the gas turbine had both been invented. William Murdoch invented gas lighting the next year, with the cotton gin, ball bearings and the first new (and modern) method of preserving food following very quickly. 

     In 1799 Alexandro Volta invented a primitive battery. 1804 saw the first locomotives, 1810 the first tin can and in 1821 Faraday invented the electric motor. In 1823 Macintosh invented a water repellent fabric, which became a raincoat that still bears his name. And 18 years later Goodyear learned how to vulcanize rubber, leading to all kinds of new applications and uses for the substance. Again, hard rubber and specialized fabric would be crucial elements in one of the early 20th century’s biggest technological achievements: the airplane.

      Curious and intelligent minds were busy inventing the combine harvester (1834), the propellor (1835), the sewing machine (1846). Stethoscopes, miner's lamps, electromagnets, modern matches, a modern wrench...all of these and more were invented in the early decades of the 1800's.

     All of this speculation, experimentation and theorization must have made conversation among the learned and the news-hungry quite fascinating: the world was changing, faster and more drastically than ever before. Even if people in most of the countryside, and certainly in rural areas like Braintrim (it wasn't Laceyville yet), continued to do things as generations before had done, they could sense that changes were coming. People may have still gone most places on horseback or by carriage, or rowed and paddled boats and ferries, but they had heard about steam engines, and steam boats, and steam trains. People may have still spun their own wool, but news of different types of fabrics and ways of weaving and producing cloth would have found them. People may have used outhouses, but news of flush toilets and city sewage systems would have been discussed. People may still have read by candle light or oil lamp but experiments with electric lighting, such as Davy's arc lamp in 1809, would have been on the horizon nonetheless.

     Even if most or all of the early experiments failed, the fact that people were questing to produce new methods of doing things, moving things, preserving things, and communicating things must have made the early decades of The Oldest House exciting times.     

     This year at The Oldest House one of our exhibits on the Main Floor will re-create a General Store as it might have been in 1836. Research shows that the man who owned The Oldest House at that time, Gen. Bradley Wakeman, did in fact run a General Store at the House for a short while. He later moved into 'town:' what would become Laceyville, and operated his store there. 

     Just like today's local stores--I think of the Hardware store in Laceyville, actually--the General Store back in 1836 would have been the place to get fresh news from both far and near. Wakeman would have had the latest newspapers from perhaps Wilkes Barre, or Philadelphia, or New York. Perhaps he would have even carried one of the new ‘literary journals,’ like the Princeton Review. He certainly would have had some copies of Godey’s Ladies’ Book for the fashionistas of the day. Wakeman would have ordered books for the readers among his customers: newly published works like Emerson’s Nature, or Hawthorne’s Twice Told Tales, Bulwer-Lytton’s The Last Days of Pompeii, Davy Crockett’s Autobiography, even poetry by Longfellow.

He would have heard about Macintosh's strange new fabric that made water bead up and run off: it's doubtful he would have carried any of it, but how can we be certain? Likewise, although he carried oil lamps, candles and their ilk, Wakeman might have read about the experiments in gas and electric lighting, and maybe would have taken pride in being the first to offer one of the ‘new fangled’ lamps to his customers!

     Although he probably carried a selection of produce from local farms, he no doubt had heard of the combine harvester and perhaps even the Frenchman Appert's new way to preserve the bounty of the harvest. By the last decade of the 1700's the first method of preserving food in glass jars sealed with thick wax had been invented and tested. By the early part of the 1800's, it was widely used. Later improvements, of course, would make home canning a national pastime by the first decades of the 20th century. 

Since it was one of the few in the area, it was likely that Wakeman’s General Store carried a little bit of everything, and equally likely that people would ride or walk for miles to get there. Because it was so much more than a store! Like taverns and coffee houses in larger towns and cities, the General Store that Wakeman ran at The Oldest House was very likely a place for people to exchange ideas and news, as well as a place to shop. The expansion of the United States to the West, and the first rumblings of abolitionism would have inspired and informed conversations, too, just as the plethora of experiments and new devices and methods would have. 

This Season, please join us at The Oldest House, where we hope you will find that sense of excitement and fascination that Wakeman’s General Store must have engendered back in the 1800’s. Imagine yourself back in a time when no one was jaded about the country’s future, when the horizon seemed limitless and when people really could achieve their dreams.

We open for the Season on May 17 and are open every Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 1-4 p.m. through the summer. Special events are held every month, on average, and tour guides in authentic reproduction 18th and early 19th century garb will be on hand to entertain and enlighten.

“Come Back in Time with Us” at The Oldest House, Main Street, Laceyville, PA.

     Please 'like' my page on Facebook, chat with me on Twitter, and visit my Amazon Author Page at:

amazon.com/author/deborahcourville

New Author Page on Amazon!

Hello all
Just a quick note to let you all know I have created an Author Page for myself and this book on Amazon.
Please check it out.
I've listed the dates for upcoming events where I'll be doing book signings. These are generally in conjunction with other themed events, such as Opening Weekend at The Oldest House in Laceyville, PA, or with Founders' Day in Tunkhannock.
I'm pleased to tell you that A RIVER IN TIME is now available at the Endless Mountains Heritage Region, and also at the Wyoming County Historical Society, in addition to Amazon.com.
Once The Oldest House is open for the Season (May 17-19 is our Opening Weekend) the book will also be available there, of course. Season opening times are usually Friday, Saturday and Sunday 1-4.
Remember, all royalties from the sale of the book A RIVER IN TIME go to The Oldest House in Laceyville, for its upkeep.
The book is set at and inspired by the House, as you probably know, so this summer I encourage you to come and visit us at the House, and become inspired yourselves!
We are still working on the displays and exhibits at the House for this year. We change them every year, and at the moment I'm sourcing things like large barrels, deer hides, period utensils and tools and other objects for an 1836 General Store display I'm mounting. Yes, there WAS a store at the House during that time period; after a few years, it was so successful the owner of the House at the time moved to a 'real' store in the small village that would soon become Laceyville.
Thanks so much--more later.
~DLC

Makeup, Clothes & the Economy in A RIVER IN TIME Maquillage as a Status Symbol

Makeup, Clothes & the Economy in A RIVER IN TIME

Maquillage as a Status Symbol

Graduate students have long studied the effects of the U.S. and now the World Economy on fashion. It has been established that during times of depression, recession or just general economic downturns and instability, women’s makeup, particularly lipstick, got bolder. It might even be said that extremes in makeup and possibly also adornment could be one signal of a crumbling economy and a society on its way out.

Makeup has always been a class identifier. Even in today’s society, very poor women generally do not use makeup because they do not have the money to buy it. Similarly, in 18th century France especially, the amount of makeup signified your social status and economic class. It wasn’t called ‘paint’ for a reason: it really was.

But no matter how poor you were or how undistinguished according to the aristocratic scale, everyone tried to look as though they were from a higher station on special occasions. (Maybe that’s why it’s called ‘make UP’ because it elevates your social status?)

I remember my mother telling me that her mother used to put beet juice on her cheeks and lips to make them red before a date or a social event; my maternal grandmother had an impoverished start in life, and beet juice was the only cosmetic she could think of or easily obtain.

In A RIVER IN TIME, I make a reference to this when Izzy and Elizabeth are discussing cosmetics. Set in 1795, the characters in A RIVER IN TIME are not slaves to fashion, as the elaborate clothes and makeup of the mid 18th century have relaxed in the wake of the Revolutions. They will soon take a brief journey, in fact, into neo-Classicism with the arrival of the two decade Empire style in clothing and makeup which idealized the nude look--on many levels.

But more about that another time.

The way makeup was regarded, the reasons it was worn, and therefore its style have also changed throughout history. When makeup was viewed, as it was in the mid 18th century, as an adornment in and of itself, the styles were very bold: both genders wore wide swaths of rouge in heavily whitened faces, and sported false beauty marks as well. In some cases this might have been not only to show off how much effort went into the preparation but also to disguise the disfiguring effects of disease.

 As the 18th century progressed, and then in the 19th century, a more natural look became favored, and although makeup was still used, the intent was that it not be seen.

From an 18th century perspective, the hypothetical connection between a society’s economic well being and their use of cosmetics leads down many paths. 

Certainly in 18th century France--even then, as now, the Fashion Mecca--women’s and even men’s makeup, hair/wigs and clothing became more and more extreme throughout the century until by 1780 it could be said to have been almost bizarre. 

Clothing

In mid 18th century France, women wore wire cages under their voluminous skirts to create a silhouette so wide they couldn’t fit through doorways straight on. Their gowns were low cut as well, and embellished with bows, overskirts, panniers and other adornments. The fancier the clothing, the less likely it was that the woman could dress herself so again, elaborate clothes signified the upper classes. 

Dressing became quite an event in and of itself: it would take a long time, for one thing. Also, it was yet another way the nobility called attention to themselves. In France, it was an honor to be invited to the ‘lever’ of the King or Queen and soon lower levels of Dukes, Barons, Counts, etc. copied this. Even very well to do merchants might invite friends over to watch him dress, and do business during this time. Women did the same thing and being present while a fashionable lady got dressed with the help of her maids was a big thing.

Although women in England and the New World copied French style, they didn’t go quite to the extremes of the French, although ‘hip rolls’ were popular to achieve a sort of ‘wide angle’ look. Prior to this, in the earlier 18th century, clothing had conformed more to the natural shape, and had overall been more modest.

In A RIVER IN TIME, much comment is made on Izzy’s ‘old blue gown’ because it is wide skirted. She wears a double crinoline under it, which made it very full. The book is set in 1795, and by that date, the wide skirts like Izzy’s were going out of fashion. The new ‘Empire’ high waisted gown and dress were coming in. Although some older women preferred and stayed with the natural waist gowns, most women changed over and this is one reason that Elizabeth is so very determined that Izzy should have a new gown “in the latest style.”

Since  A RIVER IN TIME is set in Pennsylvania in the very late 18th century, the characters are not nobility or aristocracy although they are tradespeople and merchants. However, theirs is still a largely agricultural society and as such the fashions necessarily would have reflected the needs and activities of the people of the time.

Elizabeth still has some natural waist gowns as well as some newer ‘empire’ style gowns and dresses. Realistically, even a new bride with a relatively wealthy father would have only had four or so dresses and gowns, so she surely would have kept her older and slightly outmoded natural waist gowns. She probably would have worn them, too, although perhaps not for going out to Church, or to the Dance, or in Society. And she and her all around Maid and Cook, Martha, may very well have altered a natural waist gown if they could have, once the ‘empire’ waist fashion was firmly established.

Undergarments are intriguing enough to warrant their own blog entry, so we shall get to that soon. However, in A RIVER IN TIME I make mention of the fact that Izzy wore no corset but did wear pantaloons. Historically, this is not quite correct, and I note that although Izzy knew she should have been corseted with her full skirted crinolined gown, she didn’t bother. Additionally, women in the 18th century did not usually wear pantaloons, something I just learned recently. The advent of the semi sheer fabrics popular in the big cities and on the Continent during the ‘Empire Style’ movement made flesh toned leggings popular. Following this once skirts became fuller again and the waistline dropped back to the natural one, pantaloons came into favor, until by the Civil War they were more ruffled than the petticoats!

Hair

In the mid 18th century, air was hidden under elaborately curled and powdered wigs, and in the cases of some aristocratic women, hair was piled more than a foot high on their heads, complete with miniature sailing ships, beads, feathers, bird nests, and other fanciful additions. They used conical pieces to achieve the height required, as well as false hair pieces, or entire wigs. Again: more elaboration that required more attendants to dress the person and achieve the correct ‘look.’

Following the French Revolution when styles changed to more natural looks, women returned to wearing a cap of some kind if they were married. This was an outgrowth of a misinterpretation of St. Paul’s letters that the Catholic Church used for centuries before the 18th and up until Vatican II in the 1960’s to encourage women to cover their hair, as it was thought to be a tool of seduction. Note when you read novels set in the 18th or early 19th century that men adore watching their wives ‘take down’ their hair and brush it at night. The reason is that it signals, at least to them, a willingness on the part of the woman to engage in romantic activity. 

In the mid 18th and early 19th century, single women didn’t necessarily wear caps, although bonnets were much in favor for travel or outdoor activities. However, their hair was never worn loose: it was up in braids (‘plaits’), or a bun, or some other type of topknot or ponytail, and often adorned with ribbons or bows.

It may have been easier to manage than the elaborate coiffures of the mid 18th century, but later 18th century and early 19th century heads were still fashioned and restrained to some degree.

In A RIVER IN TIME I refer to this when Elizabeth assumes Izzy is married, because she is wearing a ‘mob cap’ made popular by the French Revolutionaries. Izzy, who is single, corrects her, and allows her to believe that the cap was part of Izzy’s disguise when fleeing France.

Men rarely wore wigs by the close of the 18th century, although some older men and professionals still did until the turn of the century. Younger men by 1790 had reverted to a neat ponytail, and the styles reflected a less aristocratically driven society.

It’s worthwhile noting that because personal hygiene was not up to modern standards, lice infestations were common. People did shave their heads to keep the lice at bay, and treated their wigs with powder which, while giving the fashionable white look, also was supposed to kill or at least disillusion the lice.

Skin

Pale skin was desirable in the 18th century because it signified that the person did not have to work out of doors. In other words, the paler the skin, the more likely that the person was either noble and didn’t work, or at least worked indoors as a professional of some sort. 

For women, pale skin was particularly important, and noble women carried parasols--whose name means ‘against the sun’--to keep from getting burned, or tanned. If a woman had a sunburn, or freckles, or a tan of any darkness at all, she was considered hoydenish at best and disgustingly low class at worst.

In A RIVER IN TIME, Izzy no doubt had a tan of some kind but because her cover story was that she was in disguise and fleeing France, she would probably have been given an exception by her 18th century friends. I do not discuss skin tone much in the book.

The pale skin look continued to be popular, although not to the degree it was in the mid 18th century, right through the 19th century and into the early 20th century.  In India, even today, a ‘fair’ complexion is the ideal, and some facial creams for both genders even contain bleaching agents to aid in the achievement of this. 

However, it’s interesting that since the Second World War, this ideal has done a 180 degree flip in the West. The wealthy, who may work but who have more leisure than the poor at any rate, sport tanned skin from pale golden to deep bronze to show that they have idle hours to spend basking in the sun. Poor people have no time to sit around ‘working on a tan’ as they are laboring at one or more jobs, usually inside: thus, they are pale.

With medical advice weighing in against sun exposure in the past two decades, the wealthy have stopped ‘sun bathing’ or using tanning beds, but now invest in expensive spray on tans or tanning creams that moisturize and color the skin without being harmful. A spray on tan has become almost as de rigueur for a bridal party as matching jewelry, and those from lower economic strata often feel that achieving some kind of tanned look elevates their social status. Again, poor people have no time or money to spend on any of the products and practices associated with looking tanned, just as in the 18th century they could not afford the powders, paints, parasols and other lifestyle accoutrements that fostered pale skin.

In an effort to have pale skin nobility in the 18th century applied white paint containing lead to their faces, necks and shoulders. They also used bismuth or vinegar and some even traced ‘veins’ on their bosoms with blue pencil to accentuate the whiteness of their skin.

Rouge was used, as was the ‘blanc’ or white makeup (maquillage) by both genders in the mid 18th century. Rouges were made of ground cinnabar with mercury, which is toxic. 

Later in the 18th and early 19th century rouge was still used, but less obviously, and a pale complexion was still something that was completely acceptable.

Lips

In 1770 the British Parliament (all men, by the way) passed a law condemning lipstick, and any woman using it could be tried for witchcraft. This went along with the shift from an admittedly more colorful Catholicism and even Anglican world view to the more sedate Puritan perspective. 

In the mid 18th century in France, however, lips were reddened with a semi solid substance that was made from vinegar and wood resins and varied from pink to burgundy. Perhaps the English dislike of all things French also added to the Parliamentary move.

The ideal mouth was rose bud shaped and the mid 18th century was the era when the ‘bee stung’ look was very popular. 

In the later 1800’s natural looking red lips as well as natural looking pink cheeks were acceptable because they gave the appearance of health. 

In A RIVER IN TIME Izzy has a lipstick in her reticule, but she doesn’t use it very much because Elizabeth probably doesn’t wear any lipstick.

Eyes

Eyes were not usually made up during the 18th century, but it was purely a fashion statement: eye makeup in the form of kohl has been available since Egyptian times and very finely crushed rocks mixed with a paste of some kind had also been used as a colored eyeshadow from ancient days. Egyptians even believed that eye makeup enhanced sight so everyone tried to use it.

However, in the early 19th century, women used belladonna drops to make their eyes look bright and luminous, even though they knew belladonna was poisonous. I would much rather enhance my eyes with kohl than a poison. In A RIVER IN TIME, Sam remarks on Elizabeth’s beautiful eyes after she and Izzy apply ‘mascara’ to her lashes with a mixture of ashes and beeswax. The ashes and beeswax combo isn’t actually documented in history, although kohl of course had been used for millennia. Because makeup had a chequered reputation, mascara as a lash enhancer specifically didn’t develop until the later part of the 19th century. Then it was ashes and elderberry juice which was mixed and heated and stroked on the lashes. Izzy’s use of ash and melted wax was probably a breakthrough; had she patented it and gone into commercial production she could have been a millionaire!

Eye shadow, too, while it had been used in Egyptian times, was eschewed until the Victorian Era. In A RIVER IN TIME when Izzy tells Elizabeth she has put blackberry juice on her lids to highlight them, Izzy finds it a peculiar notion. This is because not only was it a strange application of a fruit juice, but also because using makeup was something modest women didn’t do much, and if they did, the effects were not meant to be noticeable. You’ll note that while Elizabeth likes the idea of mascara, which is probably less obvious, she never mentions wanting to use eye shadow.

Eyebrows are another story. Ideal eyebrows in the mid 18th century were half moon shaped, tapered, and darkened; people used kohl, burnt cork or soot from oil lamps to achieve this look. At the French Court, sometimes people would pluck their natural eyebrows and wear false ones made of mouse fur.

YECH!

Jonathan Swift even says: “Her eyebrows from a mouse’s hide, stuck on with art on either side.”

Following the French Revolution and the American Revolution as well, the trend reverted to more natural looks. Mice everywhere rejoiced that their hides would no longer be sought out for false eyebrows.

Shapes of the eyebrows were still half moons although natural ‘wings’ or arches were acceptable in the late 18th and early 19th century’s naturalistic fashions.

Telling Time and Spending Days in the 18th Century

Hello all
Perhaps I should start, 'gentle reader?' No, I think that's been done LOL.

The title of this post is certainly broad, but I thought I'd just quickly post a few comments about the way people in the early 19th and late 18th century--the period I am immersing myself in right now--experienced their day and time.
Let's talk about time first. Yes, they had clocks, but they were weight driven or key wound. They weren't usually very precise. I have several key wound clocks at home and I generally adjust them a few minutes here and there about twice a week. So, fun, but not that reliable.
Personal watches were very expensive in the 18th century, and only wealthier people had them. Men might have a pocket watch, and women would wear a watch on a pin, possibly around their necks, or on a chatelaine.
(Hah, caught you: do you know what a chatelaine is? It's kind of key ring sort of thing, worn originally by the mistress of the castle in mediaeval times, and in the 17-18-19 centuries worn by the lady of the house, or in grander homes, the housekeeper. On it she would have all the keys needed for the house, including keys to the store cupboard and possibly the wine cellar unless there were a Butler in which case he would have that key. She would also carry some necessary items on this chatelaine, which affixed to her belt. These items might be a measuring tape, a magnifying glass, and a small watch on a chain.)
Wrist watches weren't invented yet. And again, watches needed to be adjusted: often people used church or town hall bells, which were generally rung each noon, to adjust their watches.
So people back then usually relied on the local church or town hall to know for sure what time it was.
The noon bell progressed to the 'noon whistle' in many communities during the late 19th and 20th century's industrialization; when I moved to my present home, the small village nearby still sounded a noon whistle. They stopped a few years ago, and I still miss it, particularly when I'm outside in the garden all morning.
So most people in the 18th century kept time by the sun and relied on the noon bell. They may have had a sundial in the garden of their home: this was fine, but if you weren't at home or in the garden, or if it were a cloudy day couldn't use the sundial. People learned to know what time it was by watching the sun during the day, and less common, the moon during the night. They followed the track of the sun as it got shallow in the winter sky, and became a larger curve in the summer sky. They followed the moon's path which is in opposition to the sun's: when the sun is high in the sky, the moon skirts the horizon. When the sun is low in its winter arc, the moon rises high in the cold winter night.
People also had things like hour glasses that were handy for timing shorter events like how long something had to cook over the fire (though a good cook would just know, from experience) or how long someone could devote to practicing pianoforte, or doing needlepoint.
All in all, given the available measures of time and their level of precision, I feel people in the 18th century were less precise than we are today. If they said they would stop by for a visit at 2 p.m., well, it could easily be ten after before they'd arrive: not because they were chronically late, or lazy, or didn't care about being on time, but because the variations in how watches, clocks, hourglasses and the sun all allowed them to perceive the 'correct' time made precision very rare.
Additionally, people in different parts of the U.S. (because it is so vast and wide) kept their local time. This sounds logical until you think about the havoc this could have created, and did create, when people traveled from one village to another. Because travel itself wasn't too speedy, distances covered weren't that huge, and if people went, say, 20 miles, the time at the place of arrival might have differed by a few minutes from the time at the place of departure. But since no one was used to being precisely 'on time' anyway, this didn't matter much.
It wasn't until the railroads came in during the mid 1800's that local times had to be accounted for. This is when the 'time zone' concept was introduced, something we adhere to still today.
In the 18th century people were less constrained by artificial time, i.e., clocks and watches, than we are now. At least I think so. They rose when it got light enough to wake them, or when the rooster crowed, or in some communities, when the church bells rang. They went to bed just an hour or so after sunset, since they had to use candles and oil lamps to light their homes and these were expensive. So their use was limited. Plus, if anyone's ever read by candle or lamp light you will know that your eyes tend to tire more quickly than they do using our brighter, more even modern lighting. So by an hour or so after sunset, everyone was ready for bed.
In the summer, people were probably tired enough to go to bed before sunset, since they'd been up since shortly after dawn, and summer days are long.
In a week from now those of us who live in North America go on 'Daylight Savings Time.' I understand this, and I understand the historical impetus that inspired it. But I don't like it.
I would much prefer to keep 'time,' which is a human construct and concept anyway, 'standard.' It's already still quite light out at 6 p.m.: why do we need to have it light until 7 p.m. in early March?
Other parts of the world, where this one hour alteration of the clock is called 'Summer Time' employ this during the--duh--SUMMER. Not at the nascent dawn of spring. Or the tail end of winter, take your pick: March is the transitional month.
So in today's artificially lit world, we often find it hard to appreciate fully 18th century writers' expressions like 'the night drawing in.' We find it picturesque, or 'romantic.' But just for fun some time, try not putting on any electric lights when dusk falls. Watch how the shadows progress, and deepen, and soon fill all the corners of whatever room you're in. The phrase 'night drawing in' makes more sense now doesn't it?
And on the flip side, if you can some morning, don't set an alarm: just wait until you are awakened by birdsong (or a rooster crow, depending on where you live). Admittedly here in the Northeastern US it'll be a couple more weeks at least before this happens, but it is one of the loveliest ways to wake up and I at least can't help starting my day smiling.