Final answer:
The Renaissance view that Egyptian script was ideographic is supported by Kircher's interpretation of inscriptions, his scholarly reputation, and reports on other ideographic scripts like Chinese and Mayan.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question is asking which situations during the Renaissance supported the view that Egyptian script was ideographic. Based on the provided passages, the Rosetta Stone played a crucial role in understanding Egyptian hieroglyphics. However, the question mentions specific options to choose from. Kircher's claim about the Psamtjik inscription listing his titles and his reputation as a scholar and scientist both suggest that Egyptian script was ideographic since Kircher presumably interpreted the hieroglyphs in a symbolic or ideographic manner. Additionally, reports on Chinese and Mayan scripts, which were also ideographic, could have supported the ideographic understanding of Egyptian script by association.
Therefore, the answer to the question "According to the passage, which of the following situations during the Renaissance supported the view that Egyptian script was ideographic?" would be option D: I, II, and III. This implies that Kircher's interpretation of hieroglyphs, his scholarly reputation, and contemporary understandings of other ideographic scripts all supported an ideographic view of Egyptian writing during the Renaissance.