The "historical gap" has been created by sheer size, speed, and weight differences in modern transport. Although the Hurel Dubois 34 features a high aspect wing, note it is also heavily cambered and designed for 175 mph flight. A non starter.
High aspect wings are very efficient, but their stall AOA is much lower than a low aspect wing.
The pitch inertia of a very large aircraft will much more readily torque the fuselage past stall AOA of a high aspect wing. Notice that this would be a consideration for larger tail volume, and is a problem high efficiency/low drag designs are struggling with even today. Take a look at a Boeing 707 plan form. See how much wider the wings were and bigger the tail was. This all adds to higher stability, but alas, higher fuel consumption.
But there is a solution to this dilemma, known 100 years ago, have another wing forward of the main wing as a stall "feeler". This is the poor man's MCAS. This wing would stall first and drop the nose. A bi-plane? Technically, yes, but how big should the forward wing be? The range would include canard all the way up to second wing.
Perhaps something resembling the Rutan Model 76 Voyager - with Hstabs/elevators added on rear for (larger scale) adequate pitch control - and LNG in the booms! (the jets could be mounted on the central fuselage).
But if they want very high aspect wings, 21st century engineers can't just scale up a sail plane any more than the dolphin can be scaled up to a blue whale without major design considerations, which must include safety.