Difference Between Meno And Socrates

At the end of Meno, Socrates said that if he can convince anyone of the things they have concluded, then Meno would have provided a great benefit to the Athenians. And given the context of the Apology, Meno would have also benefited Athenians in a way that Socrates said could not accomplish throughout his life—that is a point to the direction of how to put virtue into practice. Socrates believed that if Meno had successfully determined the nature and practice of virtue then he would have help Athenians. Virtue is relevant to the Athenians because it gives them a principle—an action—to aspire to. If and when Meno succeeds in his endeavour in determining when exactly virtue is achieved, then his advice will help all—only if Meno knows what he is talking about. In the Apology, on the other hand, Socrates does not claim to know what virtue is and says that if the jurists believe that he had failed in this endeavour, then it was better for his to perish. The question here then was why Socrates’ claim of ignorance of virtue led him to equate that to death?
I believe the overall topic of Meno was to zero-in to the brass tacks of virtue. What is a virtue? And how can one be virtuous? And so Meno describes to Socrates what virtue is to him. He took an example of a man, who knows how to administer the state, “and in the administration of it to benefit his friends and harm his enemies; and he must also be careful not to suffer harm himself” (Plato, 196). In stating them, Socrates compliments him for giving him a swarm of definitions of what a virtue is. Thus, among these swarms of the definition given by Meno what is their common nature? It seems that Meno cannot arrive at the answer. Our question then for Socrates is this: if he cannot adequately define virtue himself, what are the variables that make it