It would seem they would be here if anywhere. I'll have to look. Google Books is going to ruin me.

<Calli>

Here is Steinitz on his curious defense to the Evans, from the 1889 edition of the Modern Chess Instructor:

<[W]e wish to make some special remarks on the new defence adopted by the author in the Evans' Gambit, as it affords striking examples of the application of, and the selection between, some of the different maxims laid down in our chapter on "The Modern School and the Principles of Play." It may be said of the Evans' Gambit that it puts the modern theories to a crucial test, for a Pawn is given up on the extreme Queen's wing for a remote attack in the centre and against the adverse King. For the ending, the defence ought to have a winning superiority, as his being a Pawn ahead is also greatly strengthened by his having the majority of Pawns far away from the hostile King, which invariably has to castle on the King's side early in this opening. But the chief difficulty for the defence is the formation of White's two center pawns at Q4 and K4, and the powerful ranges which the latter's two bishops obtain against the Black's King's side after Castling, more especially that of White's QB at QKt2.

It was chiefly with the view of obviating these difficulties that the author after the moves 1 P-K4, 1 P-K4; 2 KKt-B3, 2 QKt-B3; 3 B-B4, 3 B-B4; 4 P-QKt4, 4 BXKtP; 5 P-B3, 5 B-R4; 6 0-0, introduced the move 6....Q-B3, and we now propose the following continuation: 7 P-Q4, 7 Kt-R3 (in the games of the contest <i.e., the first Steinitz-Chigorin match> the author played 7....KKt-K2, which on further analytical examination we find to be much inferior to the move now proposed). There are now several lines of attack, but anyhow the most interesting is the one based on Mr. Tschigorin's idea applied in actual play against the other defence 7....KKt-K2 namely: 8 P-Q5, Kt-K2; 9 Q-R4, 9 B-Kt3; 10 QB-KKt5, 10 Q-Q3; 11 Kt-R3, 11 P-QB3; 12 QR-Q sq. At this juncture Black has to take his choice between retarding his development for a long time or allowing two "holes" (compare p. xxxi, chapter on "The Relative Value of Pieces, etc.") to be formed in the centre. As will be seen the two holes are more dangerous to his game than the block that White will create. If, for instance, 12....P-KB3; 13 PXP, 13 QXP; 14 Kt-Kt5, 14 PXB (or 14....B-B4; 15 B-K3, etc. Or 14....B-B2; 15 B-Q5, Q-Kt3; 16 B-K3, 16 Q-R4; 17 Kt-Q6 ch., 17 K-Bsq.; 18 QXQ, 18 BXQ; 19 BXP, etc.); 15 KtXKP, 15 Q-B4; 16 Kt-Q6 ch., K-Bsq.; 17. KtXB (not the tempting 17 QXQP on account of 17....Q-B3!), 17....QXKKt; 18 KtXB and wins.>

cont'd

< The defence has therefore to resort to the line of play that actually occurred in the contest in a similar position and the game would continue 12....Q-Ktsq.; 13 BXQKt, KXB; 14 P-Q6 ch., 14 K-Bsq.; 15 Q-Kt4. This is no doubt much superior to 15 KtXP to which Black would reply 15....B-B4. And now Black's pieces are certainly shut out uncomfortably for the present, but our theory is that White's QP being too far advanced will require the protection of Queen and Rook for some time, and if Black's King can only be guarded against any attacking surprises the defence ought gradually to obtain the best of the game with the majority of Pawns on the Queen's side and the two Bishops. For that purpose we would advise even to give up the Pawn gained and to proceed with 15....B-Qsq. at once, if only for the reason that if 15....P-B3 White might have some good sacrificing opportunities by 16 K-Rsq., 16 B-Qsq.; 17 KtXP, and if 17....PXKt; 18 P-B4. However, after 15....B-Qsq.; 16 KtXP, 16 P-QR4; (not 16....P-QKt4, on account of the rejoinder 17 KtXBP, etc.); 17 Q-Kt2 (if 17 Q-B5, 17 Q-R2; and after the exchange of Queens Black has the superior game with 3 combined Pawns available for advance on the Queen's side, as against 2 separated ones of the opponent, besides that, White's QP will be weak), 17 P-QKt4; and we believe Black ought to able to extricate himself with the superior game. >

Here is the position at the end of Steinitz' analysis:

click for larger view

Of course, you might still wonder which of Steinitz' principles suggested that, e.g., ...Qf6-d6-b8 was a good maneuver. If you put it that way, it's a hard question to answer. But I think the general rationale for his opening play was the idea that the defense should prevail, absent a serious error, and secondly that a pawn majority far from the opposing king was of great value in the ending. (I don't think the concept of the minority attack existed in 1889.)

The more specific notion behind his defense, I think, was that he did not want to play ...exd4 (as in the Normal Position, which would be reached after 6. 0-0 via 6....d6 7. d4 exd4 8. exd4 Bb6) which would give White a mobile center and (by getting the pawns at c3 and e5 off the board) go a long way toward opening the a1-h8 diagonal for a White bishop on b2. Maintaining a center pawn at e5 until the position had become blocked would blunt White's attack, Steinitz thought.

Lasker found a more pragmatic approach to Steinitz' goal: 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 Bb6, and the pawns on c3 and e5 remain in place. Of course White can regain his gambit pawn, but only by entering a disagreeable ending.

Chigorin vs Steinitz, 1890