I have always heard that there was some doubt as to whether Balanchine and Danilova were actually married. But then one could argue that if they lived together for a certain length of time, and I am not sure what that is, it could be considered a common law marriage.

I read Bernard Taper's "Balanchine" a few weeks back because I saw it on Dina McDermott's "Top 20 Dance Books" list here on criticaldance. It's wonderful! Anyway, Taper describes the Geva/Balanchine relationship at length. The way he tells it they lived together (for not much longer than a year, if I'm remembering right) but, indeed, never married.<P>Another interesting thing about Taper's book is that it was written while LeClerq were still married, but after her bout with polio, so it provides glimpses of a contemporary view of their union.

When I worked with her in 1982 or 1983, Miss Geva referred to herself as Balanchine's "first wife".

As I understand it Balanchine was legally married to Geva, then he divorced her and was with, either married or not, to Danilova.<P>Dirk, you are right, common law marriage is complicated. I believe it also has to be in existence for a certain number of years, too, but can always be legally contested. Always glad to have your information ....it's not criticizing at all - it's good information.

As far as I know, he was legally married to all wives except for Danilova, whom he lived with. This is according to her biography; they had been friends since childhood and lived together, I believe in Paris, after fleeing the turmoil in post-revolution Russia. I don't believe they lived together long enough to be considered "common law". However, common law and such may be different in Europe than here in USA.

yes, I agree with Trina. This issue is addressed in Choura, The Memoirs of Alexandra Danilova.<P>------------------<BR><BR>"If it's self expression you are looking for the place for you is the analyst's couch" - Merce Cunningham