In this thesis on the spatiality of Henrik Ibsen’s The Master Builder, I argue that the play is dominated by spatial concerns. On the most basic level, the play is the product of a specific cultural-historical space, namely modernity as experienced in the latter nineteenth century. In this regard I particularly discuss the changing conception of space during the period, as for example manifested in the new importance accorded negative space, and in the uncanny loss of a true home in modernity. Additionally, a certain type of spatiality is evoked by the genre of the play. Even though Ibsen’s prose plays bear close resemblances to the modern novel, The Master Builder is still written as a play, which inevitable calls the theatre to mind. The theatre itself constitutes a very peculiar space with its specific characteristics and conventions. Furthermore, because of the meta-dramatic nature of so much of this play, the performance space of the theatre is to a certain extent replicated and reflected in the internal performance space of the text, which I discuss as it is manifested in the stage descriptions and dialogue of the play. Due to its subject-matter, the scenery and thematics of the play are interwoven in a rather curious way. The background of reality provided by its setting (and the action, especially in the beginning) both complements the imagery of the dialogue and is juxtaposed with the fantastical nature of this imagery. This can especially be seen in the uncanny nature of the home in The Master Builder. Further, all the main characters have peculiar relationships with space. Solness perceives almost everything in terms of his trade, while Hilde’s fantasies find architectural expression. Aline is inextricably bound to the memories of her old home which burned down with all her treasured possessions. Yet, the play is also spatial in the light of its undermined temporality. Because of the frequent telling of stories, memories and dreams, and by the constant repetition of words and images, The Master Builder has a certain static quality, despite its chronological progression. Although I have argued throughout that spatiality is not to be located in the utter denial of temporality, the intrusion of the past into the present complicates the temporality of the play considerably. If one adds to this the dubious nature of the past, the difficulties in interpreting the play are multiplied. The Master Builder teems with spatial imagery, and its spatiality both facilitates and shapes the action and dialogue. Despite of the importance of what is seen or said, as it finds expression in the scenery and imagery, that which is unseen or which remains unsaid is perhaps as important for any interpretation of the play. In my view an investigation of its spatiality opens another angle for the interpretation of this extraordinarily complex and intricately layered play, even though it does not provide one with a definitive reading.