Originalism and Interpreting 18th Century Recipes

"Interpreting the Constitution is no more difficult, and no different in principle, than interpreting a late-eighteenth-century recipe for fried chicken." --Gary Lawson

But suppose you have an old recipe for, say, Great Grandma's egg nog, and it says something like this:

 "Add nutmeg to taste."

Some would argue that such an ancient text defies original meaning originalism and requires the modern reader to interpret the phrase as a living, evolving concept. But does it really? Are we able to reasonably understand the meaning of ancient texts, such as Hamlet, The Iliad  The Odyssey. Great Expectations, or the Bible?

Back to Great Grandma's recipe. When someone asked me about this once, I replied as follows:

But nutmeg means nutmeg (as nutmeg was understood at the time the recipe was published). Maybe a little more for you, a little less for me. Maybe a pinch. Maybe two pinches. But certainly not a handful. But if you substitute cinnamon for nutmeg, you are amending the recipe, not following it. Which under Art. V is fine so long as 3/4 of states ratify the amended recipe.

What are your thoughts about being faithful to Great Grandma's recipe? 

Is it futile to try to read Hamlet today? Should we allow judges to re-write Hamlet so we can understand it's text?