先秦到東漢各思想家之學，皆言道術。而道家一派人獨以道名之，甚至後世宗教性之道教亦承襲之而稱道家，此蓋因道家一派之起，淵源甚早。其書專名道，如「道可道，非常道」之類語言，乃見其獨特異耳。先秦學者不論何一派，無不談政治。其消極避世如莊子，所見亦與政治環境有關，餘別如儒、道、名、法……，態度無不積極，道術為天下製，其志亦無不為拯贖天下也。 以時代言之，在老子之前，古代思想家所推崇為聖人者曰伊尹、太公望，《老子》書中稱之為「以道佐人主者」。伊尹、太公以降，享大名者為管仲，儒家對之雖時有貶語，亦多盛稱之。今存《管子》之書，則內容甚駁雜，而老子及《老子》書之時代問題，亦嘗為學術界聚訟之大關目。近年馮友蘭、陳鼓應、胡適之諸人對此皆有論述。本篇作者先弗下結論，就時人所懷疑老子之時代各點，細加分析；又用近歲考古發現材料，如帛書《老子》、《伊尹‧九主》、《皇帝四經》之屬，參論《老子》之篇章，發現《老子》一書在思想上及文字上承襲《管子》之處不少，其間有一部分又可能襲自《周書》。今《逸周書》中仍有若干處與《管子》之文字、體製極近，似皆可注意。由古代伊尹、太公至管、老，此一系統不宜埋沒。而後世政治家如張良、諸葛亮……以及更後之言政術、政象者，雖不能無受法術、縱橫策士之薰陶，亦恆尊管、老為大宗。此點吾人或不可不注意者也。

The teachings of various schools of thought from pre-Ch'in times until the Later Han were all called Tao-shu. Because the origins of the Taoistic School (Tao-chia) were quite early, it took the name of “Taoist”for itself, and later, religious forms of Taoism (Tao-chia) simply followed in the tradition by appropriating the name. The fact that their texts spoke exclusively of“Tao,”in such phrases as“The Tao which can be named is not the constant Tao,”just shows the school's specialty. No school in pre-Ch'in times was without a political discourse. Even the passive, hermit-like Chuangtzu reveals elements relevent to his political environment; the other schools such as the Ru, Logicians, and Legalists, etc. were all very actively promoting something called Tao-shu to order the world. Their purpose was to save the world. Speaking historically, before Laotzu, Yi Yin and T'ai Kung Wang were esteemed as sages by ancient thinkers. In the Laotzu text, they were said to have“guided the rulers of people with Tao.” After Yi Yin and T'ai Kung, Kuan Chung also enjoyed fame; although the Ru tradition sometimes criticizes him, they also praise him a great deal. The currently extant Kuantzu is an extremely desultory work. As well, the dating of the Laotzu text is a matter of great controversy among scholars. In recent years, such people as Feng Yulan, Chen Kuying, and Hu Shihchih contributed to the discussion of this matter. Without coming to any conclusions at first, the present author takes up points which earlier scholars found suspicious, and adds more detailed analysis; then, using recently discovered archaeological materials such as the silk-manuscripts of Laotzu, Yi Yin Chiu Chu, and Huangti Ssuching, he discusses individual passages of the Laotzu text and discovers that many parts of the latter reveal a marked dependency on the Kuantzu text in such matters as thought and phraseology. Some of these also were taken from the Choushu. In the current Yi Choushu text there are many places extremely close to the Kuantzu in language and style, which deserve our attention. We should not overlook the existence of this tradition from Yi Yin and T'ai Kung of antiquity to Kuantzu and Laotzu. Political figures of later eras, such as Chang Liang, Chu Ke Liang and others, as well as many even later figures who discussed political technique and political conditions, while of course being thoroughly influenced by Legalism and Realpolitik, also respected Kuantzu and Laotzu as masters. We should pay attention to such evidence.