Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Dating and identification of the first English edition poses difficulties. We assume that the first impression was released in May 1834, whereas the presented copy comes from the second impression, which differs only in the cover details. In particular, the fact that the Polonaise Op. 3, published in April 1836, is featured among the pieces mentioned on the cover means that the presented copy could not be released before that date. For a more accurate discussion on those issues, see the characterization of EE1 in the 1st movement of the Concerto.

EE1 includes the Concerto in the version for one piano only – like in the case of the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, the orchestral material was not printed by Wessel. It reproduced the text of FE with numerous corrections and additions. The revision was thorough – a significant number of patent mistakes and inaccuracies was corrected, e.g.:

• the majority of overlooked accidentals was added, including almost all mentioned in the characterization of FE (apart from bar 103 and 113);
• mistakes and inaccuracies concerning the notation of rhythm were corrected, e.g. in bar 23, 53, 63, 94;
• the  before the last quaver in bar 44 was moved to the correct place, while the inaccurately written  in bar 77 was moved before a;
• some of the pitch mistakes were corrected, e.g. in bar 45, 73 (inaccurately), 108.

Less obvious changes may also be considered accurate, or at least justified, e.g.:

• completing slurs in the L.H. after similar figures in bar 17 and 58, 19, 76;
• specifying the perhaps inaccurate slur in bars 16-17;
• adding cautionary accidentals, e.g. in bar 47 and 58;
• specifying rhythm in the R.H. on the 4th beat of bar 91.

However, there is no proof that Chopin could have participated in the development of EE – all changes and additions with respect to FE may be explained by a thorough revision, especially since the author of the revision was Fontana, who was friends with Chopin and who knew his output.

Some arbitrary changes, which do not fit the aforementioned categories, were also introduced, e.g.:

• arpeggio in bar 16 and 57 as well as 44 was added,
• vertical accents instead of short ones were used in bar 34,
• slurs in the L.H., contrary to similar figures, were added in bar 51, 58,
• the long accents in bars 65 and 67 were reproduced inaccurately,
• the mistake in bar 73 was corrected contrary to the logic of the accompaniment's shape,
• the staccato dot in bar 74 was changed to a wedge,
• c² in bar 112 was sustained,
• the tie of e in bar 122 was overlooked.

Some mistakes were not noted by the revision, e.g. the missing  over the mordent in bar 72, a crotchet instead of a quaver in bar 91.

EE1 committed also new mistakes, e.g. the wedge in bar 52 was overlooked.

As far as Fontana's fingering is concerned, in spite of it being, to a significant extent, in compliance with the Chopinesque entries in pupil's copies, it was most likely not consulted with Chopin. However, one cannot exclude that Fontana, staying in close touch with Chopin during the creation of the Concerto, got acquainted with the composer's fingering, to a certain extent. On the other hand, it seems impossible that he could have memorised detailed indications in this respect for the entire Concerto; hence we should approach the authenticity of Fontana's particular proposals with great caution. Wherever FE gives Chopinesque fingering, Fontana did not change it, he would at most complete it.