In the popular imagination, Jane Austen reigns as the quintessential British novelist of manners, social convention, nation, and family. 2 But one could just as easily describe her as the novelist of desire, given the longing that motivates the plot of her every novel, or of lack, which she can treat as desire's origin. Austen's protagonists seem to have internalized an elaborate web of rules and prohibitions, which gives them a sense of their own lack and the lack in others, and this, in turn, can tend to generate desire, which, in turn, generates plot. Given this situation, we find it strange how infrequently Austen has been discussed from a Lacanian standpoint. Recent years have seen the first emergence of Lacanian work on Austen, after decades in which nothing of the kind had been attempted. 3 Daniela Garofalo, whose work has led the way in this regard, despairs that "Jane Austen has rarely been read in conjunction with Lacanian theory," despite how Austen's subject matter-loss, desire, sexual difference, and social competition-"connects her powerfully to some central Lacanian concerns." 4 One thing that a Lacanian approach to Austen would help us understand, we suggest, would be the function of time in her fiction. The question of time has been posed often in Austen criticism, especially with regard to Persuasion, and yet there remain gaps, which readers powerfully feel, between the subjective experience of time for the characters, the rigors of narrative time, and the steady march of clock time as the novel represents it. Emily Rohrbach has shown how these "gaps and silences" open into problems of "future anteriority," which seem to instantiate a "double 'time of reading.'" 5 Lacan, as Rohrbach acknowledges, can be especially helpful as we continue to account for the temporal effects of this lack, and its significance for the novel's treatment of intersubjective desire.In her classic analysis of Persuasion, Robyn Warhol points out that