In the pre WW1 era, with 'old sensibilities' yet the excitement of being able to take the new films and plates out of the studios and into 'Homes and Gardens', many photographers turned to the new anastigmats because they were fast, but also usable at fast apertures. Tessars, Heliars, Cookes, Dagors, Collinears, the lot.
They solved the aesthetic difficulties, according to articles written at the time, and from conversations with old timers when I was much younger, by the simple expedient of focussing sharply ( a soft, yet coherent image ) then racking the lens forward, shifting the plane of sharp focus away from the face and into the space before the camera .
Light is always the most important thing in establishing the 'feel' of the image. Next, you can give full exposure and gentle development, to reduce the hardblacks in the shadows. Then, working at a fairly large aperture, and using focus carefully, as did Emerson, you can put the clarity where you want.
So, for a wide field of view, with a coherent image but not striking acutance... I think you're looking at a Series VII Protar or Dagor. Even if you need to stop down a great deal, using Emerson's aesthetic of very soft shadows and mellow highlights ( roughly a scale from Zone II / III ~ Zone VII / VIII ) will reduce the biting, in your face intensity and put the attention back on the content. A good place to begin would be Tri X @ 50 or 100.
A 9 1/2 " Dagor covers 11x14 @ f/32 ( barely, barely, barely ) and a 7" covers 8x10 in a very skinny sort of way. A Protar VII of slightly longer focal length will be needed.
As for a Series V Protar, I don't mind working at f/18 for landscapes. The lenses are very fine, and like the Dagor and Series VII, make a lovely, round, "breathing image ", as Ansel put it. A 5 9/16" covers 8x10, and 7 3/16" covers 11x14.
Investing part of the lens fund in some Satinsnow might be clever.
good luck
.