# Definitions of enriched monoidal category

This question is about two definitions of enriched monoidal categories I have:

Let $$\mathcal{V}$$ be a symmetric monoidal closed category.

The first definition: a $$\mathcal{V}$$-enriched category $$\mathcal{C}$$ is a pseudomonoid object in the Day-convolution monoidal category $$(\mathcal{V}\text{-}\mathbf{Cat}, \otimes_{\mathrm{Day}}, y(1))$$. This is a straightforward generalization of the definition of monoidal categories but everything has to be worked externally and I don't really feel like to work in this definition (for example, I am pretty sure that a kind of coherence theorem holds but I don't know if I will be able to write down the proof).

The second definition can be found here (Bar constructions for topological operads and the Goodwillie derivatives of the identity, Definition 1.10): https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.gt/1513799607
In this paper, an enriched monoidal category $$(\mathcal{C}, \overline{\wedge}, S)$$ over $$(\mathcal{V}, \wedge, I)$$ is a $$\mathcal{V}$$-enriched category $$\mathcal{C}$$ which is tensored (denoted by $$\otimes$$) and cotensored, together with a monoidal structure on the underlying category $$\mathcal{C}_0$$ and the distribution natural transformation $$d: (X\wedge Y)\otimes (C \overline{\wedge} D)\to (X\otimes C)\overline{\wedge}(Y\otimes D)$$ satisfying certain associativity and unitality condition, which is a natural requirement for bar constructions.

So my question is: What is the relation between these two? It will be pleasing to be able to replace the first definition by the second one in other situations but I could not see any immediate implication from one to another or confluence under some conditions.

The two definitions are equivalent, for monoidal structures on $$\mathcal{V}$$-categories that are tensored over $$\mathcal{V}$$. I'll describe how the tensor product corresponds to the distributivity map:
The tensor product for a monoidal $$\mathcal{V}$$-category $$\mathcal{C}$$ in the first sense is given by specifying a tensor product on objects, and compatible maps $$\mathcal{C}(C,D) \wedge \mathcal{C}(C',D') \to \mathcal{C}(C\overline{\wedge}C', D\overline{\wedge} D')$$ in $$\mathcal{V}$$. So to show the second definition implies the first, we need to construct these maps. If $$\mathcal{C}$$ is tensored over $$\mathcal{V}$$, we can use the tensor product in $$\mathcal{C}_0$$ to get a natural map of sets $$\mathcal{V}(X, \mathcal{C}(C,D)) \times \mathcal{V}(Y, \mathcal{C}(C',D')) \cong \mathcal{C}_0(X \otimes C, D) \times \mathcal{C}_0(Y \otimes C', D') \to \mathcal{C}_0((X \otimes C) \overline{\wedge} (Y \otimes C'), D \overline{\wedge} D').$$ Using the distributivity transformation we get a map $$\mathcal{C}_0((X \otimes C) \overline{\wedge} (Y \otimes C'), D \overline{\wedge} D') \to \mathcal{C}_0((X \wedge Y) \otimes (C \overline{\wedge} C'), D \overline{\wedge} D') \cong \mathcal{V}(X \wedge Y, \mathcal{C}(C \overline{\wedge} C', D \overline{\wedge} D').$$ Now set $$X = \mathcal{C}(C,D)$$ and $$Y = \mathcal{C}(C',D')$$, then the pair of identity maps gets sent to the required morphism $$\mathcal{C}(C,D) \wedge \mathcal{C}(C',D') \to \mathcal{C}(C\overline{\wedge}C', D\overline{\wedge} D')$$.
On the other hand, if we have these maps then for $$X,Y \in \mathcal{V}$$, $$C,D \in \mathcal{C}$$, we can form the composite $$X \wedge Y \to \mathcal{C}(C, X \otimes C) \wedge \mathcal{C}(D, Y \otimes D) \to \mathcal{C}(C \overline{\wedge} D, (X \otimes C) \overline{\wedge} (Y \otimes D)),$$ where the first map is the tensor product of unit maps for the cotensoring adjunction. This is then adjoint to the distributivity morphism $$(X \wedge Y) \otimes (C \overline{\wedge} D) \to (X \otimes C) \overline{\wedge} (Y \otimes D))$$.