Oh, agreed!! (more seriously though never disparaging one of our best authors, just changing topic...: re op.113, the "by 1859" - McGill may have a copy with a (1858, that is) ©-mark; don't know- is from the appearance of a reference to op.113 - without opus number given, but otherwise identified, and besides Pazdirek, op.1130 seems unlikely from the date (1859) of this review - here. From its appearance there in that December 1859 review though, deducing by-1859, anyway.) Eric 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
judging from the copy at the Duke Scriptorium (and the cover page with large resolution and size particularly), was in fact originally published with opus no.385, oddly. Well, duplicate opus nos. is/are not unknown! Eric 04:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC) (actually,the full title on the op.385 is the same as that on what became op.1385 I think. curiouser and curiouser.)