Citation question - sources within sources
This is probably a really obvious answer to most, but it's something I've never quite been able to get a handle on. (And I've had different profs give different answers over the years when I have asked previously).
When you have a primary source cited within a secondary source - say, Dr. John Appleseed, in his paper on the genetic line of the Macintosh apple, quotes from a letter written from the colonies back home in the 1500s. I toddle off and pull the letter from Joe Q. Apple, esq. from EEBO and take a look. I end up using the original letter in my paper as well.
Do I cite Joe Q Apple as a primary source with no reference to Dr. John Appleseed in that specific citation, since I pulled the letter and looked at it separately (instead of taking Appleseed's word for what it said)?
Or do I cite Joe Apple's letter as originally being referenced by Dr. Appleseed, even though I'm using it independently of Appleseed's points, because he's the one who found the thing in the first place and I'm piggybacking on his work?
It feels like cheating to use an obscure primary source and not make note of how I came across it, but on the other hand, if I find and follow up on an interesting and useful book or journal article in a paper's footnotes or works cited, I don't mention *that* in my own paper's footnotes.
What's the protocol there?
When you have a primary source cited within a secondary source - say, Dr. John Appleseed, in his paper on the genetic line of the Macintosh apple, quotes from a letter written from the colonies back home in the 1500s. I toddle off and pull the letter from Joe Q. Apple, esq. from EEBO and take a look. I end up using the original letter in my paper as well.
Do I cite Joe Q Apple as a primary source with no reference to Dr. John Appleseed in that specific citation, since I pulled the letter and looked at it separately (instead of taking Appleseed's word for what it said)?
Or do I cite Joe Apple's letter as originally being referenced by Dr. Appleseed, even though I'm using it independently of Appleseed's points, because he's the one who found the thing in the first place and I'm piggybacking on his work?
It feels like cheating to use an obscure primary source and not make note of how I came across it, but on the other hand, if I find and follow up on an interesting and useful book or journal article in a paper's footnotes or works cited, I don't mention *that* in my own paper's footnotes.
What's the protocol there?