I have the following situation (I am in the humanities):
I am writing a paper. In that paper, I several times cite a particular scholar's book. Now, in that book, this scholar cites (not quotes) a particular historical primary source.
As this looked interesting to me, I traced down this primary source (a diary entry), but I found it in a source collection different from that cited by the author. Moreover, when looking at the original source, I discovered that it contains additional content not summarized by that scholar that is useful for me. So I went ahead and directly quoted the primary source (including bits not mentioned by the author) in my paper.
Now, in the footnote, I am currently just providing a reference to the original source, not to the mentioned author where I first found a reference to that source. My question is whether this is okay?
According to the Chicago Manual (my citation style) and sources on the web, my understanding is that I only need to provide an additional comment in the form of "Source X, cited/quoted in ....." if I do not actually trace down the original source. So, it seems to me that what I am doing is fine.
Still, as especially the advice on the internet is somewhat unclear and mostly jut designed to discourage citing of primary sources without having checked them, I thought I could also ask here.