Park Je-ga: Seo-eol Book Examiner and Bukhagui's Meaning

Pak Je-ga was appointed a proofreader at the Kyujanggak in 1779 despite restrictions on seoeol entering government service. A path opened for his scholarship, but discrimination based on birth remained. Bukhagui, written after his 1778 mission to Qing, is remembered as a set of reform proposals aimed at improving ordinary people’s lives.

This article follows the Bukhagui records in the Korean History Database, checked in October 2026.

The restrictions faced by a scholar born seoeol

Being seoeol limited access to government office regardless of scholarly ability. Seoeol refers to descendants born to concubines. In Joseon, the system distinguished between legitimate sons and seoeol.

Born in 1750, he was the son of a concubine of Royal Secretary Pak Pyeong. His pen name was Chojeong, and he showed talent in poetry, calligraphy, and painting. His literary work is also preserved in Jeongyujip and Jeongyusigo. Basic facts about his life can be found in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture’s “Pak Je-ga” entry.

Scholarly relationships also formed outside official institutions. His exchanges with Pak Ji-won, Hong Dae-yong, Yi Deok-mu, and Yu Deuk-gong formed their basis. The Northern Learning school refers to intellectuals who sought to learn from Qing scholarship and culture and apply them in Joseon.

×

Park Je-ga’s appointment at the Gyujanggak expanded opportunities for scholars of secondary birth to hold office.AI-generated image

What did Pak Je-ga’s appointment as a Kyujanggak proofreader change?

His appointment in 1779 opened an opportunity to put his scholarship to work in state publishing projects. King Jeongjo also appointed Yi Deok-mu, Yu Deuk-gong, and Seo I-su as proofreaders. It was one example of a policy to appoint seoeol scholars to government posts.

Proofreaders assisted the Kyujanggak’s senior officials. Their practical duties included editing and publishing books. In this post, Pak Je-ga also gained opportunities to convey his views to the king.

The proofreader post, however, was a junior position at the Kyujanggak. Appointing some talented individuals did not mean equal treatment for all seoeol. Both the opportunities and the limits appear in Our History Net’s explanation of Bukhagui.

Timeline of missions to Qing and government service

Pak Je-ga began writing Bukhagui before his appointment as a proofreader. A mission to Qing meant travel by an envoy’s party to and from the Qing capital. The timeline below distinguishes the sequence of his writing and government work.

He made four missions to Qing in all. They also gave him opportunities to meet Qing scholars and artists. Accounts differ on the year his exile ended, so it is omitted from the timeline.

Why Pak Je-ga wrote Bukhagui

Pak Je-ga wrote Bukhagui to find ways to apply what he had seen to life in Joseon. The culture and practices he observed on his first mission to Qing in 1778 were his starting point. The preface also records that Yi Deok-mu accompanied him.

I recorded in the book those customs that could be put into practice in our country and would be useful in daily life.

Pak Je-ga, Bukhagui, “Preface to Bukhagui”

This passage shows how he chose what to record. His criteria were whether something could be put into practice in Joseon and whether it would help in daily life. The preface also says that he wrote about the benefits of adopting these practices and the problems caused by not doing so. The passage can be checked against the original text of “Preface to Bukhagui” in the Korean History Database.

The book’s title came from the words of Chen Liang in Mencius. Northern Learning later came to refer to an intellectual movement that sought lessons in Qing culture and institutions. Its aim was to address poverty and institutional problems in Joseon.

Differences between the Inner Section, Outer Section, and Jinso edition

Pak Je-ga continued to add to and revise Bukhagui after writing it. The Inner and Outer Sections differ in the kinds of subjects they emphasize. The Jinso edition was a version expanded with agricultural material for presentation to the king.

Why he discussed carts, markets, and Western technology together

He believed that poverty could be reduced by improving both everyday technology and the distribution of goods. The idea was called iyong husaeng: using tools and institutions effectively to make life more prosperous.

His argument about consumption assumed a relationship with production. The reasoning was that if people did not use goods, the skills needed to make them would be hard to sustain. It cannot be turned into advice that people today should simply consume more.

To bring in technology, he proposed obtaining books and studying them. He also considered sending specialists to Qing to learn. He went so far as to propose inviting Western missionaries working in Qing. These plans are summarized in New History of Korea’s discussion of proposals to introduce Western technology.

The outcome of his reform proposals and his surviving writings

Not all his reform proposals were accepted after he entered government service. In 1786, he submitted policy proposals connected to Bukhagui. Our History Net explains that the proposals were not accepted at the time.

Political risks also grew after King Jeongjo’s death. In 1801, he was exiled to Jongseong after becoming implicated in a seditious letter incident. He died in 1805.

The influence of his writings lasted longer than his government career. Bukhagui was cited in Oju Yeonmun Jangjeon Sango and Imwon Gyeongjeji. This later use is described by Our History Net’s “Pak Je-ga” entry.

A separate trace of his artistic exchanges also survives. In 1790, the Qing painter Luo Pin (羅聘) painted his portrait. The Chusa Museum in Gwacheon presents a black-and-white photograph of the portrait. Its description of the museum item distinguishes the photograph from the location of the original work.

How to distinguish writing, appointment, and implementation

The existence of a book and an appointment to office do not, by themselves, prove that a policy was implemented. Each event provides evidence for a different question. Keeping them distinct helps explain his achievements without overstating them.

This table sets out guidelines for interpretation drawn from comparing the timeline with the records. The order of writing in 1778 and appointment in 1779 is part of that distinction. Saying that he first developed his reform ideas after his appointment would reverse the sequence.

Records and interpretation

Records left by Pak Je-ga himself should be distinguished from assessments in later research. The preface is evidence of his stated purpose in writing the book. Other records are needed to determine whether that purpose was realized across society.

What the original text says directly

“Preface to Bukhagui” states that its purpose was to record cultural practices and institutions that could be applied in Joseon. It also explains that the book’s title came from Mencius. This record alone cannot establish the policy effects of his reform proposals.

Assessments shared by historical accounts

Major historical accounts treat him as a leading practical-learning scholar of the Northern Learning school. Central to that assessment is his view of commerce and distribution as ways to improve daily life. They do not, however, describe him as someone who completely broke with a Confucian worldview.

Our History Net’s “Bukhagui” also emphasizes his understanding of Chinese civilization. The cultural practices and institutions he believed had survived in Qing were subjects for study. This calls for caution about equating his views directly with a modern call for openness. This perspective appears in Korean History Chronology’s “Bukhagui” entry.

Points where assessments differ or further checking is needed

There are also critical assessments of whether his plans to introduce technology were feasible. New History of Korea notes that separating technology from missionary work was not straightforward. The Encyclopedia of Korean Culture’s “Northern Learning” entry also discusses limitations in his proposed methods of introduction. The ambition of his proposals and their feasibility therefore need to be assessed separately. Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, “Northern Learning”

Accounts differ on the year his exile ended. Our History Net’s “Pak Je-ga” gives 1804. The Encyclopedia of Korean Culture’s “Pak Je-ga” gives 1805. Resolving the difference requires a separate comparison with original records; it should not be assumed to be a scholarly dispute.

What this means for readers today

This case shows that appointing talented people and reforming institutions are different matters. Opening a government post to one person could leave discrimination based on birth intact. Having an opportunity to propose a policy was also not the same as having the authority to carry it out.

Bukhagui also links everyday tools with economic institutions. In discussing carts, Pak Je-ga considered the movement of goods. In discussing the study of technology, he also planned for knowledge to spread within Joseon. These connections reveal the concrete shape of late Joseon reform proposals.

Questions checked against the record

Did discrimination against seoeol end when he became a proofreader?

Discrimination against seoeol as a whole was not abolished. His appointment was a case in which some scholars gained a path into government service. The junior, assisting status of the proofreader post must also be considered.

Was Bukhagui written after his appointment?

He began writing it before his appointment as a proofreader. His first mission to Qing was in 1778. He was appointed a proofreader in 1779.

Did his emphasis on commerce mean he neglected agriculture?

Improving agricultural production was also a major concern. He discussed farm tools, fertilizer, and agricultural techniques. He also considered how produce was transported and traded.

Is Bukhagui a collection of policies that were implemented?

It is a work containing observations and reform proposals. The fact that proposals were recorded does not prove they were implemented. Whether they were adopted must be checked in the records for each policy.