Mostly through the influence of Virgil (and the important political myth of the "Third Troy") Hektor has had a much better "press" in 'western' literature and criticism than Achilles - but it is Achilles, not Hektor, who 'passes' this test. He has accepted his death at Troy from the beginning (probably the only character in literature whoKNOWS, not just abstractly, but concretely, that he is going to die. He does _not_ know that Patroclus will die, and that (in t he context of Agamemnon's betrayal of him) drives him berserk, but he carries even madness better than most (e..g. his concuct of the funeral games, his words to Lykaon (?) just before he kills him), and then in Book 24 in effect not only accepts that but learns something new: that the death of an enemy can be tragic, that "humanity" is broader than kinship lines. (The last is what made the Iliad sort of a politcial Manifesto for the Athenian Democratic Revolution: the core of that revolution was the creation of the _deme_ a geographical and political unit that cut across kinship lines.) Hektor, on the other hand, _also_ should know his fate/destiny/moira, but continuously deceives himself, u to the very last moment when he is deceived by Athena.
(I don't remember how far Hauser extends the reach of 'classical,' but this principle (like some modern tragic principles) gets a bit muddied when we come to _Antigone_ -- beginning with the fact that it is not _obvious_ or _given_ even who the protagonist _is_.
Carrol
P.S. All Agamemnon has to do to recover dignity, after having fully compensated Achilles, is to say, "The gods made me do it." I think that is to be accepted without irony.