How authentic are the narrations mentioned concerning the husband's right over his wife, and does the apparent meaning of the wording, "Were he afflicted with a sore that she licked, or were pus and blood to gush from his nostrils and she swallowed it, she would not have fulfilled his right," indicate the permissibility of licking pus and swallowing it, or is it a metaphor? And does this contradict the ruling on pus and blood being impure?

Regarding the two mentioned hadiths, the sentence you are asking about concerning the husband's right over his wife and its authenticity is questionable, and it is more likely weak and not established. As for exaggerating the husband's right over his wife to the extent of prostrating to him, if it were permissible for a human, this has been established in other authentic hadiths, such as "If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would have commanded the wife to prostrate to her husband."