Hugo vs. the Tragedy Fans

I was looking at a recent collection of plays by Victor Hugo, and found this in Claude Schumacher's introduction:

W.D. Howarth wrote: "On the whole, Romantic drama often strikes us as lacking the metaphysical dimensions provided by the traditional systems of religious thought, such as had been present in Greek tragedy as well as in Shakespeare's and Racine's."

This has me scratching my head. The Romantics were big on metaphysical speculation. The editor comments:

This lack of a "metaphysical dimension", of tragic grandeur, has been a criticism since the first appearance of Hugo's plays, and his use of chance, coincidence and curses is usually compared unfavourably to the imposing gravitas of the classics (Greek, Elizabethan or Racinian).

It's true that fans of classic tragedy sometimes attack the Romantics this way. But the editor parries and thrusts:

But what is "fate" in Oedipus? An absurd prediction by an oracle that if a lawfully married couple should conceive a child, then that child would kill his father and marry his mother. Why? No reason is given! How does the prediction come about? By a series of improbable coincidences.

Too true.

I wonder if the real problem isn't that Hugo and the other Romantics just aren't gloomy enough. Sure, Hugo kills off a lot of his heroes. But maybe his disposition is a bit too sunny for "real tragedy" somehow.

Cursed from the first - from his mother's womb
Oedipus faces the worst of dooms.

Tragedy fans gladly consume
Plays with the deepest level of gloom.