To put it simply, Liu An's decision to kill his wife and feed her to Liu Bei was a radical performance of loyalty, filial piety, and Confucian heroism.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms is an epic meant to inspire ideals of heroism in an age of degeneracy and chaos. The concept of yingxiong (英雄) became a popular and prevalent role in Imperial Chinese literature, holding the ideas of a righteous and able male hero that pits himself in a world filled with disorder, war, competition, and conflict. Recall that within Romance itself, Cao Cao makes the claim to Liu Bei that they alone are worthy of being called heroes, in that scene Cao Cao acknowledges Liu Bei as an equal contender to the throne, as their characters stand out amongst the realm filled with false and incapable warlords.

The 17th century editor and commentator Mao Zonggang provides some insightful ideas into the gendered concepts of heroism. Throughout his commentaries on Romance, Mao brings up instances of virtuous and immoral men and women, and how they reflect Chinese values and understandings of masculinity and gendered roles. That is to say, the superior qualities of men over the inferior qualities of women.

To show that the Han Empire is decaying and political disorder has swept the realm, lines such as “hens have become cocks” illustrate the idea of a shaken world. Popular blame is placed on the eunuchs of the court who held extreme power over the empire in this period. It would then be fair to conclude a castrated man is synonymous to a woman, evil and corrupt in nature. When Dong Zhuo plots for Emperor Shao to commit suicide by drinking poisoned wine, the emperor’s concubine offers to take the wine on his behalf. This sacrifice means that the male officials of the court have become so incapable and corrupt that only a woman is left to show duty and piety.

A yingxiong character is an individual who has traits disassociated with feminine behavior. The exemplary figure shows not just martial and tactical prowess, they are able to free themselves of slovenly and sexual attachments. Lü Bu is the perfect example of this which Romance constantly shows. While Lü Bu is an outstanding warrior capable of commendable feats, his inability to follow loyalties and righteousness is a direct result of his corruption through women. So many of his motivations are influenced by the beautiful Diao Chan, (parallels with Dong Zhuo as they fight over Diao Chan). Lü Bu thinks that he is only a capable yingxiong if he can win over Diao Chan, but this persistence is precisely his downfall. Mao points out that not only has Lü Bu’s betrayal against his father Dong Zhuo shown his vulnerability, but his military and political inadequacies are directly because Lü Bu favors the words of his wives and concubines over his generals and advisors. Lü Bu, the mighty warrior but an insufficient yingxiong, himself admits “Too much sex and wine have ruined my health”.

Whereas Lü Bu is painted as the tragic buffoon, our true hero comes through with Liu Bei. When Liu Bei is being chased by his enemies, he chooses to abandon his wives so he can effectively escape with his troops. When Zhang Fei attempts suicide after a major defeat in battle, Liu Bei stops his sworn brother with the speech:

兄弟如手足，妻子如衣服。衣服破，尚可縫； 手足斷，安可續？」

"Brothers are like limbs, wives and children are like clothing. Torn clothing can be repaired; how can broken limbs be mended?"

Liu Bei here prioritizes his sworn brothers and his men over his wives. His ability to abandon his own lovers for the sake of political gain and “the good of the realm” is celebrated. Liu Bei has clear motivations unabated by emotional and sexual ties, it’s personal sacrifice and moral upstanding that makes him the prime yingxiong.

This lets us understand Liu An’s actions. With no food at him, Liu An still feeds Liu Bei his wives, the ultimate if extreme way of showing yingxiong virtue, he prioritizes his master over his lover. This may be the function of Liu An’s story, but it understandably has left some commentators disgusted, Li Yu apparently found it “too cruel” an act to follow yingxiong qualities.

Now let us take a bloody turn and look into the history of cannibalism, and why this episode on Liu An does not result in complete disgust for the characters involved.

Cannibalism culturally speaking, draws the line between the “civilized” and the “barbarian”. In the early classics, Mencius was quoted with "even the devouring of animals by animals is repugnant to men". Sima Qian contrasts Confucius's most diligent disciple Yan Hui with Robber Zhi to establish the fundamental distinction between the sage and the flesh-eating barbarian. But throughout Chinese history, consumption of human flesh has been gone beyond isolated cases during wars and famines.

The idiom shirou qinpi (食肉寢皮) comes from the classical story of Zhuo Chuo, a Jin warrior who surrendered to the Qi. When Duke Zhuang of Qi hailed his generals Zhi Chou and Guo Zui as heroes, Zhuo Chuo, having previously defeated these two while in the service of Jin, angrily claimed that “as to those two, they are like beasts, I will eat their flesh and sleep upon their hide!” This is not an exact literal claim of cannibalism, rather it dehumanizes Zhi Chou and Guo Zui into beasts. This contempt is just rhetoric for destroying one's enemies, however, important to note here is the cultural understanding that destroying the essence is not simply killing a person, but dissolving their physical being through consumption. Eating the enemy thus denies the other’s existence. There’s also the saying henbude bani chile (恨不得把你吃了) which means “I can’t help but eat you”. It’s an example of fury and hatred towards the other, regressing into beast-like barbarism to render the destruction of the hated. This revenge cannibalism has shown to exist in Chinese history. During the Tang Dynasty, it was said that corrupt or tyrannical officials were slaughtered by outraged citizens and eaten:

“A very special kind of ritual food was human flesh. It was by no means an uncommon occurrence for outraged Tang citizenry to chop up the body of a corrupt or tyrannical official and eat him .... In 739 an officer of the court, who enjoyed the monarch's favor, accepted a bribe to cover up the crime of a colleague; the affair came to light, and the ruler had the offender beaten severely, after which the official supervising the punishment cut out the culprit's heart and ate a piece of his flesh. Again, in 767 a man murdered his rival, who had accused him of misdeeds, and having sliced his body into gobbets, he partook of them. In 803 a military officer led a mutiny against his commander, killed him, and devoured him, presumably with the help of his associates.”

Another idiom is yizi ershi (易子而食), which originates in a story of when Lu State was invading Wu State. A Lu official persuaded his lord to resist the aggressors rather than sign a humiliating truce with the anecdote that “When the Chu army besieged the capital of Song, the men in the city exchanged their sons for food and split up their bones for fuel. And still they would not submit to a covenant at the foot of their walls. For us, who have sustained no great loss, to do so, is to cast our State away.” The idiom means that a situation is dire, like that in war or famine, one must take such drastic action such as killing one’s own kin. However these are rare instances, not the norm of Chinese history, and suggests an aversion towards cannibalism even in China’s earliest written history.

Regardless, this goes into Confucian dynamics of father and son, the son within the family and the family within the state. Killing one’s own son was not an act of religious ritual, but out of desperation and hunger. Yet, the act is still “ritualistic” in that it shows sacrifice towards the state, and reflects the sacrifice war brings upon the common people. The young sons of the realm are conscripted to defend the “fatherland”, and meant to give up their lives for a necessary cause. The son, the all important hereditary figure of the traditional Confucian Chinese household that reproduces and maintains the family institution, must, in extreme circumstances, be exchanged for food, as food, for the sake of political and stately needs.

This ties back to the story of Liu An and Liu Bei with sacrifice and stately devotion. Liu An, unable to provide game, kills his wife. Liu Bei's departure is described as follows:

"He was deeply affected at this proof of his host's regard and the tears rained down as he mounted his steed at the gate. 'I wish I could go with you,' said Liu An, 'but as my mother still lives I cannot go so far from home.' Liu Bei thanked him and went his way."

This is a gender-specific reenactment of the idea of sacrificing the son by the father, switched here with the wife's sacrificing by the husband. And again, the victim is offered as food for political purposes.