Beorn doesn't seem to fit nicely with most men, but I echo
Raynor's thoughts in that he was a man.
The quoted
Letter 144 goes to say also that Beorn would not have lived greater than the lifespan of a man. He would have died roughly the same age as Men did. It was in respondance I assume to somebody who had asked why Beorn wasn't in The Lord of the Rings, hence why Tolkien replied with:
'Beorn is dead, see vol1 pg241. He appeared in the Hobbit. It was then the year Third Age 2940 (Shire -reckoning 1340). We are now in the years 3018 -19 (1418-19). Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a man.' I doubt Beorn would have lived very long past the
T.A. 3000.
Tolkien leaves a reference to vol1 pg241, where Tolkien is always referring to the 1966 Allen and Unwin edition:
Quote:
’Frodo learned that Grimbeorn the Old, son of Beorn, was now the lord of many sturdy men, and to their land between the Mountains and Mirkwood neither orc nor wolf dared to go.
’Indeed,’ said Gloin, ’if it were not for the Beornings, the passage from Dale to Rivendell would long ago have become impossible. They are valiant men and keep open the High Pass and the Ford of Carrock. But their tolls are high,’ he added with a shake of his head; ’and like Beorn of old they are not over fond of dwarves.'~Many Meetings
|
I don't know if much more is known on Beorn (as to why he was considered a man), but not only did Tolkien refer to him as a Man in Letter 144, the dwarves thought of Beorn, and the Beornings, as Men too.
Perhaps it has something to do with the Etymology of Beorn. The Old English word first meant
'bear,' but over time it evolved to mean
'warrior.' I think this is Tolkien cleverly using the evolution of the Etymology of Beorn to show Beorn's ability to change from a man (a warrior) to a bear.