司馬遷陳述：「李耳無為自化，清淨自正；韓非揣事情，循執理。作〈老子韓非列傳〉第三。」（《史記．太史公自序》）此外，他還將莊子、申不害也附在〈老子韓非列傳〉中合傳。並言莊子「其要本歸於老子之言」，申不害則「本於黃老而主刑名」，韓非也是「喜刑名法術之學，而其歸本於黃老」。（《史記．老子韓非列傳》）並且，司馬遷總結此四人的學術曰：「老子所貴道，虛無，因應變化於無為，故著書辭稱微妙難識。莊子散道德，放論，要亦歸之自然。申子卑卑，施之於名實。韓子引繩墨，切事情，明是非。其極慘□少恩。皆原於道德之意，而老子深遠矣。」（仝上）依照司馬遷的陳述，此四人「皆原於道德之意」，但除莊子是直接「其要本歸於老子之言」外，申、韓則是「本於黃老」，和「歸本於黃老」，「黃老」均「道德之意」，所以才「老子深遠矣」；雖司馬遷未明言「黃」本於「老」還是「老」本於「黃」，但據其意當為「黃」本於「老」，否則比老子更深遠的。

　　　　　The Historian Szu-ma Chien's comments on Han Fei Zi: 'Emphasizing Xin Ming Fa Shu, and basing his views on Huang-Lao.' Since Huang disappeared, and contents of two chapters of Han Fei Tzu, Interpretation of Lao and Analogy of Lao, were not quite the same of Lao Tzu, besides, a lot of his views of Xin Min Fa Shu were different from Lao Tzu, hence a lot of scholars suspected these comments on Tao and Te in Han Fei Tzu were actually the works of Taoists of Warring Era or West Han Dynasty. After Lao Tzu, according to my arguments, Taoists putted forward Zhuang Tzu and 'Huang-Lao' (The Four Political Treatises of the Yellow Emperor), both inherited and expanded the thoughts of Lao Tzu. Han Fei's thoughts inherited and expanded 'Huang-Lao'. Interpretation of Lao and Analogy of Lao were inheritance and expansion of the thoughts of Lao Tzu too. His views of Xin Min Fa Shu may differ from thoughts of Lao Tzu and Zhuang Tzu, but were not far from thoughts of The Four Political Treatises of the Yellow Emperor of 'Huang-Lao'. Therefore, Han Fei's arguments on Tao were in fact ' basing on Huang-Lao'. Scholars doubts arose from the disappearance of The Four Political Treatises of the Yellow Emperor, and from their misunderstanding of 'Huang-Lao'.